Lawmaker: Net neutrality a top issue
528735
(InfoWorld) - The U.S. Congress still needs to deal with network neutrality, and supporters in Congress are willing to block any legislation favored by broadband providers until the issue is resolved, a leading Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday. "Network neutrality is a large, unresolved debate," said Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, speaking at the State of the 'Net Conference in Washington, D.C. "It's [the Internet's] open and accessible policy that has enabled it to be a platform of innovation." A net neutrality law, which would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or slowing Web content from competitors,Â stalled in Congress in 2006, and large broadband providers, such as AT&T and Verizon, opposed efforts to pass a law. But net neutrality advocates -- many of them part of the Democratic majority that now controls both houses of Congress -- would block any legislation requested by the large broadband providers until a net neutrality compromise is hammered out, Boucher predicted. Last year, AT&T and Verizon pushed for a new law that would streamline the franchising process they must go through to offer television over IP service in competition with cable TV. But this year, the large broadband providers have largely backed off on their lobbying efforts, and Boucher suggested that's because Democrats will demand a net neutrality law as a trade-off for any legislation that benefits providers. Boucher supports a net neutrality law, but he called for compromise. Congress should not pass a net neutrality law with "unintended consequences" that hurt the development of the Internet, he said. "I don't want to do anything ... that has the effect of hobbling innovation inside the network," he added. Other speakers at the conference, sponsored by the bipartisan Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, suggested a net neutrality law would hurt efforts to increase broadband adoption in the U.S. A net neutrality law would limit broadband providers' options for providing new services, said George Ford, chief economist at the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies, a free-market-focused think tank. "We should exercise discipline," Ford said. "We rarely do that with communications policy." Other speakers argued there's little evidence of broadband providers blocking competitors' Web content, a scenario net neutrality advocates want to prevent. "Economic change and technological change need room to breathe," said Christopher Yoo, a tech law professor at Vanderbilt University. If broadband providers eventually take action that harms customers and competition, then Congress should pass a law, Yoo said. Yoo and David Farber, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University, argued that broadband providers need the ability to block Internet content such as spam and to shut down Web applications that hog bandwidth. Providers should also be allowed to prioritize Web applications such as video or voice, allowing customers to have a high quality of service, Farber said. "If you try to get quality of service for everyone, you don't get quality of service," Farber said. But Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia University Law School, said providers should only block Web content in the most extreme circumstances. The difference between "good blocking" and "bad blocking" depends on the user's perspective, he said. "Blocking should be highly suspect," Wu added. "We say good blocking is good and bad blocking is bad, but so does the Chinese government. They're making bad decisions at the center [of the network]."
721292
(InfoWorld) - U.S. senators questioned Thursday whether members of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission plan to enforce merger conditions that AT&T Inc. agreed to in its December acquisition of BellSouth Corp. Democratic members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee questioned why FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate issued a joint statement while approving the merger saying the FCC couldn't broadly enforce some of AT&T's concessions. "What I find difficult to understand is that ... you said that you do not intend to stand by the deal that was reached," said Senator Daniel Inouye, the committee chairman and a Hawaii Democrat. Martin and Tate, both Republicans, had protested a net neutrality condition, preventing AT&T from giving priority transmission speeds to its own or its partners' Web content for at least two years. The net neutrality conditions "very well may cause greater problems than the speculative problems they seek to address," Martin and Tate said in the statement Dec. 29. Martin on Thursday said he intends to hold AT&T to the net neutrality agreement, but he doesn't plan to impose those standards on other broadband carriers. "Since [AT&T] volunteered to do that, we would enforce that," he said. "That does not mean we were changing our policy." Martin also suggested another part of the agreement setting out wholesale rates for some data services may be unenforceable. "What is your legal authority as chairman ... to not enforce something you just did?" asked Senator Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat. AT&T agreed to lower the wholesale special access prices for DS1, DS3, and Ethernet services available to some regional telecom carriers and large businesses, but not to large competitors. But the FCC's policy in the past has been that wholesale discounts should apply to all customers, Martin said. "That tariff actually has some components that I believe are illegal under the commission precedent," Martin said. "They can file [the proposed discount], but I'm not committing to approving something that would be in violation of our precedent. We don't allow for that kind of discrimination." But Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat who pushed for conditions on the AT&T merger, noted that the FCC adopted the AT&T merger conditions on a 4-0 vote. "It's hard for me to understand why we can't implement something we adopted unanimously," he said. Senators also urged the FCC to work on ways to get broadband service to rural, inner city and poor areas. The FCC on Wednesday issued a report saying the number of high-speed lines in the U.S. increased by 26 percent during the first half of 2006, from 51.2 million to 64.6 million lines in service. The number of high-speed lines grew by 21 percent in the second half of 2005. Senators also pointed to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's latest study saying the U.S. ranks 12th in broadband adoption rate among industrialized nations. Commissioner Michael Copps called on Congress and the FCC to develop a national broadband strategy. He called the U.S. broadband adoption rates "woeful." "I am really worried that we can go into the 21st century and have a bigger digital divide in this country ... than we had back in the days of plain, old telephone service in the 20th century," he said. "This just isn't feel-good liberal theory -- we're talking about the competitiveness of the United States of America."
548872
Speakers at a two-day "network neutrality" workshop press the government to expand its regulatory role when it comes to internet access and content. By the Associated Press.
384834
(InfoWorld) - Hundreds of groups and individual Internet users sounded off to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)Â on net neutrality in comments filed Monday, the deadline for responding to the agency's inquiry into the proposed regulation. Individual Internet users, trade groups, and advocacy organizations filed about 670 comments about net neutrality rules with the FCC Monday. Individuals and organizations have submitted nearly 29,000 comments on net neutrality since the FCC opened its inquiry in late March. Net neutrality advocates want the FCC or the U.S. Congress to prohibit large broadband providers like AT&TÂ and Comcast from blocking or slowing Web content from competitors. Many of the comments Monday came from individual Internet users who asked the FCC to protect them against new fees that they fear broadband providers could charge Web content providers. "Keep the corporations off our rights," wrote Internet user Jack McFarley of Washington state in an e-mail that was part form letter. "Net neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity, and economic innovation in America." Bonnie Bennett of California seemed to take a more individual approach in her e-mail to the FCC. "Free, unlimited access to the Internet is the modern-day version of how to educate the citizenry of a well-functioning democracy," she wrote. "Big companies and global corporations care a lot about profits and stockholders but not much about educating citizens." A technology director of a school in Mississippi said net neutrality rules would protect his students' ability to access the information they need. "The importance of the Internet is increasing each month," wrote David Scovic. "Many small innovative Web sites that are vital to our teaching would be affected by a no vote [on net neutrality rules]." Net neutrality advocates have argued that such rules are needed after decisions by the FCC and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 allowed broadband providers to stop sharing their networks with competing Internet service providers. The debate over net neutrality heated up after Ed Whitacre, former CEO at AT&T, complained in BusinessWeek in late 2005 about potential competition from Internet companies, saying he wasn't going to let them "use my pipes free." In March, the FCC launched an inquiry to examine net neutrality proposals, looking at whether broadband providers charge different prices for different speeds and how consumers are affected by the ways broadband providers manage their networks. Hands Off the Internet, an advocacy group representing AT&T, Alcatel-Lucent, the American Conservative Union and other organizations, said in its filing that net neutrality advocates haven't shown the need for new regulations. Broadband providers aren't blocking competing content, the group said. "There is no current or anticipated content discrimination or service degradation justifying new regulations by the commission," wrote Christopher Wolf, cochairman of Hands Off the Internet. "Moreover, regulation could well thwart Internet growth and make consumer access unfairly expensive." The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade group representing Microsoft, Google, and other tech vendors, said a net neutrality rule is needed because there's little competition among broadband providers. Broadband providers "insult the commission's expertise by summarily proclaiming the broadband access market competitive without any specific evidence of competition," the group said.
764858
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)Â should resist calls to impose net neutrality regulations on broadband providers because such rules could hurt the Internet, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)Â said Thursday.
586869
In some cases, fights in Congress have slowed progress, or the U.S. government has focused on other priorities. In other cases, the cost of IT projects has been an issue.
457665
The run-up to November elections means that even if Congress takes another crack at Net neutrality and related broadband legislation when it returns from a month-long recess next week, some observers don't expect either bill to pass.
757666
(InfoWorld) - The U.S. Congress may take another crack at net neutrality and related broadband legislation when it returns from a month-long recess next week, but some observers aren't laying odds on either package passing. In June, the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved a wide-ranging broadband bill and the House of Representatives passed its own broadband bill. Both bills would streamline the franchising process telecommunications carriers need to go through to offer Internet Protocol-based television in competition with cable TV. However, both the committee and the House rejected attempts to strengthen net neutrality requirements in the bills. TheÂ battle lines over net neutrality have, if anything, become more defined since those votes, and some people involved in the broadband debate say the legislation is unlikely to pass in a highly politicized election year. Supporters of the broadband bill had hoped to get a vote in the full Senate before its August recess, but Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, placed a hold on the bill, threatening to filibuster it unless stronger net neutrality provisions were added. Wyden wants the Senate to prohibit large broadband providers such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. from blocking or slowing Web content from competitors. This week, a Wyden spokeswoman said the hold is still on the bill. "We will not lift it until there are strong net neutrality provisions in the bill," she said. Neither side has offered a net neutrality compromise during the August congressional recess, said a spokesman of one organization involved in the debate. TheÂ net neutrality debate has turned largely into a partisan issue, at least on Capitol Hill. Many Democrats have sided with consumer groups and many large e-commerce companies backing a strong net neutrality requirement. Many Republicans have backed the large broadband providers and network equipment vendors opposed to a new law. Congressional leaders have targeted Oct. 6 as the adjournment date for the year. The entire House and one third of the Senate is up for re-election in November, and many observers say it will be difficult to pass controversial legislation during the last days of the congressional session. If the legislation doesn't pass this year, the new Congress would have to start over with a new broadband bill in 2007. Net neutrality advocates say the future of an open Internet is at risk after the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Supreme Court last year removed requirements that large broadband providers share their networks with competing Internet service providers. But opponents argue new regulations aren't needed because there's little evidence of broadband providers blocking Web content. Broadband providers need the flexibility to offer services such as video on separate, clutter-free networks, they say, and they should be free to investigate new pricing models in which they charge Web sites new fees for faster customer access. During the August congressional recess, net neutrality advocates hosted rallies in 25 U.S. cities, including New York, Detroit, Denver and Baltimore, and delivered petitions to lawmakers. Net neutrality advocates also used blogs and video sharing Web sites like YouTube to argue their point. As of Friday morning, there were 182 YouTube videos with "net neutrality" as keywords; most of them support a net neutrality law. The SaveTheInternet.com coalition has collected 1.1 million signatures in support of net neutrality, and it counts 26 senators who now support a net neutrality law and 14 who oppose one. "We think the momentum has swung to our side over the break," said Jim McGann, a spokesman for the It's Our Net coalition, another net neutrality advocacy group. "From where I stand, the grassroots support is building." At the same time, many employees of broadband providers and members of the labor union Communications Workers of America have contacted lawmakers and voiced opposition to a net neutrality law, said Mike McCurry, co-chairman of the Hands off the Internet coalition, representing companies opposed to a net neutrality law. And groups advocating for more cable TV competition have told lawmakers to push ahead with the broadband bill, said McCurry, once a press secretary for former U.S. President Bill Clinton. "This [bill] will stimulate competition and drive down prices, and why wouldn't we want to do that?" McCurry said. Even though net neutrality advocates have organized a "commendable" grassroots campaign, the majority of U.S. residents are unfamiliar with the net neutrality issue, McCurry said. They understand, however, that increased competition for cable TV could benefit them. "If you walk into any shopping mall and hold up a net neutrality sign, I don't expect you're going to get a response," McCurry said. "People just don't understand it." It's difficult to predict if Congress will act on the broadband bill before early October, he added. "This is one bill that could move because there's been action [in Congress]," he said. "If anything goes, this is set to go." REFERENCES:Battle lines drawn over net neutrality, Jul. 11, 2006Net neutrality in a nutshell, Jul. 17, 2006
100547
Fixing cybersecurity problems in the U.S. is a top priority at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said the agency's leader, but lawmakers didn't focus on the issue during a hearing in Congress Wednesday.
235110
Federal regulators plan to vote Wednesday whether to allow air travelers wireless high-speed Internet access. And they plan to talk about, without a vote, whether to end the cell phone ban.
562726
(InfoWorld) - U.S. consumers should be allowed to take phones along with them when they switch wireless carriers, and spectrum to be auctioned through the U.S. Federal Communications Commission should include rules requiring the winning bidders to sell access to competitors at wholesale rates, some U.S. lawmakers said Wednesday. Some members of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet also questioned what they called huge early termination fees on wireless telephone contracts. But other lawmakers and executives with wireless carriers questioned the need for new wireless regulations, saying an already competitive market protects customers. The U.S. wireless industry is "vigorously competitive," with four national and several regional carriers, said Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican. New net neutrality and open access rules that would require carriers to open up their networks to new devices and applications could slow wireless innovations, he said. "We should take care to not adopt policies that would set back the highly competitive wireless market," he added. "No matter how you slice it, forced network neutrality smothers investment in a competitive market and in the end will leave consumers worse off with probably fewer choices." But other members of the subcommittee, mostly Democrats, questioned why phones can't switch between wireless networks. U.S. customers should also be able to run any applications they want on wireless networks instead of having limited choices approved by the carrier, said Representative Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat. "It's time for consumers to become the deciders of what they want their phones to do," Doyle said. Apple's recent launch of its iPhone demonstrates the "promise and problems" of the U.S. wireless industry, added Representative Ed Markey, the subcommittee chairman and a Massachusetts Democrat. While the iPhone has innovative new technologies, U.S. customers can use it with only one wireless carrier, AT&T, he said. Other lawmakers called on the FCC to go farther than requiring device portability and application choices when it sets the rules for the use of spectrum to be auctioned in the 700MHz band. Part of the 60MHz of spectrum to be auctioned by early next year should include requirements for the winner to offer the spectrum at wholesale rates to other wireless and broadband providers, said Representative Chip Pickering, a Mississippi Republican. A wholesale rule would allow new wireless broadband providers to spring up all over the country, Pickering said. The 700MHz spectrum, now used by U.S. television stations for over-the-air broadcasts, would allow for long-range wireless broadband services, many experts say. The wholesale rule wouldn't put new regulations on existing wireless services, Pickering said. "What's wrong with that?" he asked. There's nothing wrong with a carrier voluntarily deciding to wholesale its spectrum, said Steven Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless. "We don't think a business model should be hardwired into the auction by regulatory fiat," he said. Ed Evans, CEO of startup carrier Stelera Wireless, questioned whether a wholesale business model would succeed in the new spectrum. "You're going to give up a scarce resource ... that you're not going to be able to recoup the value on," he said. "You're going to prohibit other people from deploying proven technologies in that same area." But Jason Devitt, cofounder and former CEO of Vindigo, a company that distributes local guides on mobile phones, said the U.S. needs a more open wireless system where application providers don't have to work out deals with wireless carriers. "We have a regulatory system that doesn't work," said Devitt, now CEO of Skydeck, a wireless startup. "I'm mad as hell that I require permission to innovate in the wireless market." While wireless customers usually have to switch devices when they switch carriers, U.S. television subscribers don't have to buy a new TV set when they switch from cable TV service to satellite, added Timothy Wu, a professor at the Columbia Law School and supporter of open access rules. "There's something strange about this industry," he said. "Even the rules of personal property ... seem to be suppressed."
504398
(InfoWorld) - The U.S. Congress adjourned Friday without passing a much-debated broadband bill or strengthening network neutrality rules. The wide-ranging broadband bill would have streamlined the franchising process that telecom companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. need to go through to offer Internet Protocol-based television service in competition with cable TV. But advocates of net neutrality rules pressed Congress to hold on to the broadband bill unless it included a provision prohibiting broadband providers from blocking or slowing competing Internet content. Congress' failure to pass the broadband bill "shows the power of the issue with net neutrality," said Jim McGann, spokesman for the It's Our Net Coalition, a group calling for a net neutrality law. "Some lawmakers ignored net neutrality at their peril." Democrats take control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives when Congress reconvenes in January, and the prospects for a wide-ranging broadband bill may be diminished. Republicans have generally pushed for the bill, while many Democrats raised objections based on concerns about the lack of net neutrality rules and about provisions that they said would allow the telecom providers to skip poor areas with their new television services. The House version of the broadband bill would have required VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol) providers to offer customers enhanced 911 emergency dialing service, and it would have allowed municipal governments to offer broadband data and video services. The Senate version would have permanently extended a tax moratorium on Internet-only taxes such as access taxes. Net neutrality advocates will continue to press Congress to pass a law protecting open access on the Internet, McGann said, although he declined to speculate on its chances in the new Congress. "We're going to, as much as we can, educate members about the issue," he said. The broadband bill will also lose a major champion in Congress next year. Verizon, one of the large broadband providers pushing for streamlined video franchising rules, will refocus its efforts on state legislation next year, a company spokesman said. Verizon is also watching the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which may also act on broadband regulations, said David Fish, a Verizon spokesman. "The federal campaign raised the issue to a higher visibility," Fish said. "We've made big strides toward video choice this year, and expect continued progress in 2007." Beyond the broadband bill, some tech groups said Congress' post-election lame-duck session produced mixed results. In its final days, Congress approved an extension of a R&D (research and development) tax credit, which allows U.S. companies to get a tax break of up to 10 percent of R&D spending. The credit expired in 2005, and many tech groups called on Congress to reinstate it so that the U.S. could stay competitive with other countries offering R&D tax breaks. Congress approved an extension through the end of 2007, even though some tech groups want the tax credit to be made permanent. Congress also approved an expansion that could add US$1 billion to $2 billion to the program, which has cost about $7 billion a year. Tech groups applauded the extension of the R&D tax credit, as well as Congress' decision to extend permanent normal trade relations to Vietnam. The R&D tax credit action was "long overdue," said William Archey, president and chief executive officer of AeA, a tech trade group. But groups representing large tech vendors complained that Congress failed to increase the 65,000-person limit for H-1B visas, the program used to hire highly skilled foreign workers. Congress also failed to make changes to the U.S. patent system, although many large tech companies want improvements in the quality of patents and a weaker patent enforcement system. By failing to act on H-1Bs, patents and a fiscal year 2007 budget, Congress "ultimately failed to make the grade,â Phil Bond, president and chief executive officer of the Information Technology Association of America, said in a statement. Tech worker groups have opposed expansion of the H-1B cap above the current 65,000 visas a year, saying many U.S. tech workers remain out of work. Small inventors have opposed many changes to the patent system, including a tech-backed proposal to make it tougher for investors to get court injunctions against accused patent infringers.
84957
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has weighed in on network neutrality, and has come down on the side of caution in a debate that goes to the heart of Internet technology.
299949
By DANIEL PIKE STAFF WRITER  The economic future of many rural Illinois towns might hinge on the availability of high-speed Internet access, according to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin.
393268
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is taking the middle ground in the net neutrality debate that pits large telecommunications operators against Internet giants.
193514
In interview with CNET, Rep. Rick Boucher becomes the first U.S. politician to take a public stance against cable giant's blocking of BitTorrent file sharing.
648496
Competition may not fix problems with broadband speed and cost in the United States, because of the high cost of entry into the market, the leader of a technology think tank said Friday.Many policymakers in Washington, D.C., call for competition to cure issues with broadband value and build-out, but they don&#39;t recognize that the cost of building out competing networks may make broadband a natural monopoly or duopoly, said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).&quot;It&#39;s a mistake for policymakers to assume that if they simply &#39;push the competition lever,&#39; all the problems with broadband policy will be solved,&quot; wrote Atkinson, in an ITIF paper. &quot;The bottom line is that if policymakers want to maximize not only societal welfare but also consumer welfare, they must balance the push for more competition with the need to maintain and create an efficient broadband industry structure.&quot;Atkinson and some other speakers at an ITIF broadband policy forum argued that the United States may need more broadband regulations to achieve higher speeds and lower prices. Atkinson suggested a balance between competition and regulations that would mandate open pipes and create stronger enforcement of consumer protection and antitrust laws.Not everyone agreed that more regulation was appropriate. The suggestion that broadband is a natural monopoly or duopoly &quot;as an economist gives me the willies,&quot; said John Mayo, professor of economics, business and public policy at Georgetown University.A government-supported monopoly in the traditional telephone market didn&#39;t work, Mayo said. He recalled an old Bell Atlantic billboard saying something to the effect of, &quot;We don&#39;t sell you what you think you want; we sell you what we know you need.&quot;Broadband is still a relatively new technology and the broadband business model is still evolving, Mayo said. The industry doesn&#39;t need government regulation while it&#39;s still developing.Other speakers complained that U.S. residents get&#160;lower speeds&#160;for&#160;higher prices&#160;than many residents of Europe and the Far East. But Mayo noted that prices have been falling. &quot;No matter how you measure it ... it&#39;s more affordable today than it&#39;s ever been,&quot; he said.Speakers at the forum noted that broadband policy is becoming an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign. This month, Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, outlined a broadband policy that would include tax incentives for broadband carriers to move into rural and other underserved areas. Clinton also called for public and private partnerships to help roll out broadband and for the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to develop better data about where broadband is available.Several other candidates have talked about broadband as well, including Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani, noted Jonathan Sallet, a partner in the Washington communications firm, the Glover Park Group.But many policymakers in Washington have recently taken a hands-off approach to broadband, thinking &quot;let&#39;s create a neutral platform and just let stuff happen,&quot; added Steven Weber, a professor of political science at the University of California Berkeley. But just letting stuff happen isn&#39;t working to push broadband in many sectors, including health care, he said.&quot;I don&#39;t think that argument is completely adequate to most people,&quot; he said.