"E-Democracy:
A 21st Century Citizen's Right to Know and
Participate"
Fall Conference 2007 - for a
summary report click here.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
Statement from the Department of Justice (in part) below - press release in full here: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/September/07_at_682.html
"...The Department also noted that differentiating service levels and pricing is a common and often efficient way of allocating scarce resources and satisfying consumer demand. The U.S. Postal Service, for example, allows consumers to send packages with a variety of different delivery guarantees and speeds, from bulk mail to overnight delivery. These differentiated services respond to market demand and expand consumer choice.
'No one challenges the benefits to society of these differentiated products,' the Department stated in its filing. 'Whether or not the same type of differentiated products and services will develop on the Internet should be determined by market forces, not regulatory intervention.' Despite the FCC’s call for specific information on harmful broadband activities, the Department noted that comments filed in response to this Notice of Inquiry did not provide evidence that would suggest the existence of a widespread problem that needs to be addressed. In addition, there is no consensus on what 'net neutrality' means or what should be prohibited in the name of 'neutrality.'
'Even assuming that a potential danger exists, the ambiguity of what conduct needs to be prohibited raises a real possibility that regulation would prohibit some conduct that is beneficial, while failing to stop other conduct that may be harmful,' the Department stated.
'The FCC should be highly skeptical of calls to substitute special economic regulation of the Internet for free and open competition enforced by the antitrust laws,' the Department said in its filing. 'Marketplace restrictions proposed by some proponents of ‘net neutrality’ could in fact prevent, rather than promote, optimal investment and innovation in the Internet, with significant negative effects for the economy and consumers.'
While cautioning against premature regulation of the Internet, the Department noted its authority to enforce the antitrust laws. 'Anticompetitive conduct about which the proponents of regulation are concerned will remain subject to the antitrust laws and enforcement actions by government as well as private plaintiffs, and the Department will continue to monitor developments, taking enforcement action where appropriate to ensure a competitive broadband Internet access market,'
the Department stated.
A copy of the filing is available from the Department of Justice on the Antitrust Division’s web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr. Paper copies of the filing are also available from the Justice Department’s Antitrust Documents Group, which can be contacted by telephone at 202-514-2481, by fax at 202-514-3763, or by e-mail at atrdoc.grp@usdoj.gov."
- News story about it from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602560.html
- Reaction from Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1174
- Reaction from Ed Markey, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet: http://markey.house.gov/index.php?
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
October 23, 2006
The idea, known as "network neutrality," is about preventing those who
control traffic on the Internet from allowing well-heeled Web sites to
in effect buy their way to the front of the line in a world where data
flow can be as congested as Los Angeles traffic. Proponents say it
should be a bipartisan issue.
But lobbyists for the big companies that control most of the Internet
in the United States are worried that the Democrats might pick up the
seats they need to take over one or both chambers of Congress.
The issue pits those companies — including AT&T Inc. and Comcast
Corp. — against a well-organized grass roots campaign that is joined by
some of the nation's biggest Internet success stories, such as Google
and eBay.
Net neutrality advocates say the "Internet's First Amendment" is at
stake. They argue that if those who run the network are allowed to
discriminate against Web traffic based on which sites pay them the
most, it will strangle the Internet's freewheeling, democratic nature.
Those who provide Internet service call it a simple issue of economics.
Since companies like Google are pumping more and more information
through their networks, those who provide the data pipelines should be
able to charge more to pay to upgrade transmission capacity, they say.
Last year, both the House and Senate worked on bills that would let
telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon Communications
Inc. get into the video delivery business and compete with cable
companies, without having to obtain franchise licenses in thousands of
individual communities.
House members, under intense lobbying from the former Bell companies,
were able to pass the legislation while beating back attempts to attach
strong network neutrality provisions.
In the Senate a much more ambitious bill has yet to make it to the
floor, and while there is a chance it may see action during an expected
lame-duck session in November, its prospects are dim.
At the same time, Verizon and AT&T have persuaded state
legislatures to pass relief from franchise rules, making that part of
the push for a federal law a much lower priority.
That means network neutrality proponents will have to find a different
bill to attach language to, or continue efforts to get something passed
independently.
In the House, if the Democrats prevail, neutrality advocates can expect
a much warmer reception than when the Republicans were in control.
The current chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is Rep.
Joe Barton, a Republican from AT&T's home state of Texas. Barton
has consistently opposed network neutrality, as has Rep. Fred Upton,
R-Mich., who chairs the Internet and Technology subcommittee.
By contrast, Rep. John Dingell, also of Michigan and who would assume
the chairmanship if Democrats take over, has been sympathetic to
network neutrality proponents. And Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who would
take over the Internet and Technology subcommittee, wrote an
unsuccessful network neutrality amendment in the House and has made the
issue a top priority.
Dingell is also expected to live up to his reputation as a tough
overseer of the agencies that answer to his committee, such as the
Federal Communications Commission.
On the Senate side, while a Democratic takeover is less likely, a
Democratic pickup of one or two seats may still be significant.
A network neutrality amendment sponsored by Sens. Olympia Snowe,
R-Maine, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., tied by a vote of 11-11 among
members of the Commerce, Science and Communication Committee.
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the ranking Democrat who would take over
the committee if the Democrats win control, supports network
neutrality, while current chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, blames the
issue for sinking his broad telecommunications bill.
Regardless of the election's outcome, network neutrality legislation
would still have to be signed by President Bush — something that both
sides acknowledge is unlikely to happen.
This matter continues...see article
from March 2007 here!
2005 Fall Conference
- Civil Liberties: Balancing Liberty and Security
Saturday,
November 19, 2005, 9am-12noon
Old Judiciary Room, at the Capitol
Hartford, Connecticut
- Roger Vann, ACLU of Connecticut
- Alice Knapp, CT Library Association
- Brenda Bergeron, Office of Emergency Management and Homeland
Security
- Kenneth Dautrich, UConn, Hartford
- John Danaher, Anti-Terrorism Coordinator, U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Connecticut