Benton RSS Feed
JUDGE MAY DECIDE IF EAVESDROPPING IS LEGAL
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Daniel Trotta]
The National Security Agency's domestic spying program faces its first legal challenge in a case that could decide if the White House is allowed to order eavesdropping without a court order. Oral arguments are set for today at U.S. District Court in Detroit at which the American Civil Liberties Union will ask Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to declare the spying unconstitutional and order it halted. The case goes to the heart of the larger national debate about whether President Bush has assumed too much power in his declared war on terrorism. President Bush said he authorized NSA intercepts soon after the September 11 attacks, allowing the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining warrants if in pursuit of al Qaeda suspects. The ACLU sued the NSA on behalf of scholars, journalists and attorneys, claiming that warrantless wiretaps violate the U.S. Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID...
NSA TRAIN WRECK
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Since news first broke of the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic wiretapping, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) has fought for greater congressional and judicial oversight of the program. He's to be commended for that. But the bill he's introduced is not the right remedy. Legislation that authorizes and limits necessary surveillance is surely the ultimate goal. But many key lawmakers, including Sen Specter, have not been briefed fully on what the NSA is doing, so it is way too early to be legislating -- and all the more dangerous not just to tinker but to fundamentally alter the rules.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR200606...
(requires registration)
* Specter seeks results on surveillance rules
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060612/a_capcol12.art.htm
NSA Train Wreck
FINDING FAULT WITH LOGIC OF CONGRESS'S E-MAIL PLAN
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Jeffrey H. Birnbaum]
Last month the House quietly began to make it harder for interest groups to send large numbers of e-mails to lawmakers. At the end of May, the House started to offer congressmen the chance to add an extra obstacle -- the completion of a math problem -- to their already difficult-to-penetrate e-mail systems. The purpose, officials said, was to cut down on the deluge of messages they receive.Most offices in the House are pretty impregnable as it is. Generally, before a person can send an e-mail to a member of the House, he or she must go to a lawmaker's Web site, click on "Write Your Rep," select the congressman's state, type in a Zip code that is in that state, and then fill out a form that includes name, address, city, e-mail address and phone number. And all of that must be completed before an e-mail can either be composed or sent. Even with these many impediments, lawmakers still bellyache that the torrent of e-mails they get every day is more than their staffs can handle. According to a recent study, electronic messages to the House doubled to 99 million from 2000 to 2004. In the Senate, the number of e-mails more than tripled to 83 million during the same period. So the House's managers are adding what they call a logic puzzle to the hurdles that constituents must already scale before writing e-mails to members. In addition to the Zip code test and others, the system now used by a growing number of lawmakers also asks would-be e-mailers to solve a simple numbers problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR200606...
(requires registration)
Finding Fault With Logic of Congress's E-Mail Plan
Phone companies could enter cable markets within 90 days under streamlined franchising rules and cable incumbents could opt in to the new licensing regime when existing agreements expire or when phone companies arrive in the market, according to new telecommunications draft legislation from Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). He altered his position some in response to concerns by local officials. His original bill would have allowed AT&T and Verizon Communications to begin offering video service within 30 days. Local governments won another change: Sen Stevens modified his bill so that a video provider using the new franchising process would have to pay franchise fees based on a definition of gross revenue that includes commissions paid by home shopping channels. Cities argued that the original bill would have cut franchise fees by up to 20%. While Sen Stevens would not impose video-buildout requirements on phone companies, he would expose them to penalties for denial of service based on a group's income, race or religion. But phone companies could cite commercial infeasibility to defend against red-lining charges. Under the Stevens bill, local governments would be required to use a simplified franchising procedure crafted by the FCC, in a concession to phone-company concerns that current local franchising system is long, tedious and a barrier to competition. On network neutrality, the new 151-page bill is no different from the original (S. 2686) released May 1. It would require the Federal Communications Commission to study the Internet market and file annual reports to Congress over a five-year period. Sen Stevens is holding a hearing Tuesday on his Communications, Consumer's Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. He hopes to vote it out of committee June 20 despite strong opposition by Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) -- the panel's top Democrat -- to the net-neutrality language.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342816.html?display=Breaking+News
For more on the bill, see: http://www.benton.org/node/2173
Stevens Modifies Telecom Bill
Phone companies could enter cable markets within 90 days under streamlined franchising rules and cable incumbents could opt in to the new licensing regime when existing agreements expire or when phone companies arrive in the market, according to new telecommunications draft legislation from Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). He altered his position some in response to concerns by local officials. His original bill would have allowed AT&T and Verizon Communications to begin offering video service within 30 days. Local governments won another change: Sen Stevens modified his bill so that a video provider using the new franchising process would have to pay franchise fees based on a definition of gross revenue that includes commissions paid by home shopping channels. Cities argued that the original bill would have cut franchise fees by up to 20%. While Sen Stevens would not impose video-buildout requirements on phone companies, he would expose them to penalties for denial of service based on a group's income, race or religion. But phone companies could cite commercial infeasibility to defend against red-lining charges. Under the Stevens bill, local governments would be required to use a simplified franchising procedure crafted by the FCC, in a concession to phone-company concerns that current local franchising system is long, tedious and a barrier to competition. On network neutrality, the new 151-page bill is no different from the original (S. 2686) released May 1. It would require the Federal Communications Commission to study the Internet market and file annual reports to Congress over a five-year period. Sen Stevens is holding a hearing Tuesday on his Communications, Consumer's Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. He hopes to vote it out of committee June 20 despite strong opposition by Sen. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) -- the panel's top Democrat -- to the net-neutrality language.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342816.html?display=Breaking+News
For more on the bill, see: http://www.benton.org/node/2173
Stevens Modifies Telecom Bill
CONTROL OVER CABLE TV SHIFTING
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: Deborah Yao]
Phone companies are leading efforts to rewrite rules giving local governments control over cable TV in their areas. Under bills passed or pending in at least 14 states and Congress, pay-TV control would shift to state or federal regulators. That would mean phone and cable companies no longer would have to make individual local franchise deals. Supporters tout the bills as pro-consumer, saying video competition from Verizon Communications and AT&T will lower prices. Others, including municipalities, argue that the bills cede too many consumer protections to two companies that are almost monopolies. Texas, Indiana, Kansas and South Carolina signed into law a state-approval process. Virginia passed a variation speeding the local approval process. Similar bills are pending in Pennsylvania, California, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Tennessee, North Carolina and Louisiana. Connecticut ruled that AT&T doesn't need franchises. Meanwhile, the U.S. House last week passed a bill calling for a national franchise process. A similar Senate bill is pending, though passage is complicated by debate over other issues addressed in the bill. Critics are upset the legislation lets new video providers choose the communities they want to serve. Currently, cable companies generally must serve all neighborhoods in any city they enter. “We're afraid that either state or federal bills will allow the phone companies to redline some neighborhoods, to price gouge others, to eliminate benefits to the local community and allow the existing cable company to backslide,†said Ed Mierzwinski of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Phone companies say they are spending billions on networks for TV and high-speed Internet, so it's logical to offer the services first in areas most likely to buy.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20060612/2b_story12.art.htm
Control over cable TV shifting
OMINOUS NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Steve Forbes]
[Commentary] The Net Neutrality lobbyists want Congress to pass innovation-stifling restrictions on what companies like Verizon and AT&T can do with the new high-speed broadband networks that these companies haven't even finished building yet. These networks are the superhighways for transporting Internet content and services. They will also permit Verizon and AT&T to offer Internet-based cable TV programming in competition with the cable companies, which are already competing in telecom services. Slapping these networks with premature, unnecessary regulations would be an inexcusable barrier to the tradition of innovation at the heart of the Internet. Phone companies are investing billions of dollars in network innovation. They need to earn a return on their investment. One logical way is to use a tiered pricing system that charges a premium price for premium services -- which means super-high-speed services that gobble extra bandwidth on the network. Those who are happy with standard broadband speeds would continue to pay the same prices they pay now. Passing Network Neutrality legislation would be a re-run of the disastrous Telecom Act of 1996 which forced telecom companies to provide network access to competitors at below market prices. That certainly put a chill on network innovation. After years of wasteful lawsuits and regulatory infighting, the network access monster has gone away. But it was a big factor in letting America slip into the high-tech Stone Age, with consumer broadband services lagging far behind what's available in countries like Japan or South Korea. Members of Congress are on the verge of updating the Telecom Act to bring it into sync with a communications industry that's been transformed by Internet technology. As they do that, we can only hope they don't compromise the future of this vital industry by falling for the rhetoric of Net Neutrality. After all, what network operator would be silly enough to keep investing billions in network innovations if the fruits of its innovation had to be given away at below cost?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115007182366177436.html?mod=todays_us_op...
(requires subscription)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115007182366177436.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
THE INTERNET'S FUTURE
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] The Senate will hold hearings tomorrow on "net neutrality," the idea that the pipes and wires that form the Internet should treat all content equally. An alliance whose membership ranges from the Christian Coalition to MoveOn.org is demanding that Congress write this neutrality into law; the groups fear that the pipe owners -- cable companies, phone companies and so on -- might otherwise deliver corporate content at high speed for high fees, while consigning political Web sites and hobbyists to a slow information byway. These arguments are amplified by the big Internet firms -- Google, Microsoft, eBay -- that want their services delivered fast but don't want the pipe owners to extract fees from them. Although this coalition lost a House vote last week, its prospects are stronger in the Senate. The weakest aspect of the neutrality case is that the dangers it alleges are speculative. It seems unlikely that broadband providers will degrade Web services that people want and far more likely that they will use non-neutrality to charge for upgrading services that depend on fast and reliable delivery, such as streaming high-definition video or relaying data from heart monitors. If this proves wrong, the government should step in. But it should not burden the Internet with preemptive regulation. (The Washington Post Co. owns broadband networks that might charge Web sites for fast delivery. It also produces Web content that might be subject to such fees, so it claims it has interests on both sides of this issue.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR200606...
(requires registration)
The Internet's Future
WEB TITANS' DC BLUES
[SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: Burt Helm]
An impressive array of tech titans has joined the It's Our Net coalition. Among them: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, eBay, Amazon, and IAC/Interactive. They're banding together to fight for rules aimed at preventing what they say would be discrimination by telephone and cable companies in directing Web traffic. The group has enlisted a diverse cadre of supporters, from the conservative Christian Coalition, to the liberal MoveOn.org, to consumer-minded groups like the Consumer Union. But for all that seemingly formidable firepower, the coalition has had a tough time finding support in Washington. In particular, it's struggled to enlist the aid of the many lobbyists who can make all the difference in getting a message to the right legislator at the right time. Why? Established telecom and cable companies, well-versed in the ways of Washington, are sitting on the opposite side of the policy issue. And they have succeeded in locking up some of the lobbyists most qualified to tackle telecom issues on the Hill. It's difficult to find a top-notch telecom expert without a conflict of interest. "Even if they aren't working this issue for a cable [or telecom] company, they'll say they can't do it," says Maura Corbett, a partner with Qorvis Communications who is in charge of coordinating the tech companies' fight. At stake are rules that would prohibit phone companies and cable-TV operators, which oversee the vast networks that send information around the Internet, from favoring some types of Web traffic over others. Google, Yahoo, and friends are pressing for what they call "Net neutrality" rules that would bar operators from charging different fees for varying levels of service. Phone companies like Verizon (VZ) and AT&T (T) and cable operators such as Comcast (CMCSA) oppose government restrictions on how they run their networks.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/index.html/content/jun2006/tc2006...
See also --
* Net neutrality: Meet the winner
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh]
An interview with Verizon's Thomas Tauke -- one of the most ecstatic lobbyists in Washington right about now.
http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+Meet+the+winner/2008-1028_3-6082444.h...
TELECOM COVERAGE BLACKOUT
[SOURCE: Drew Clark 6/9]
The House passed the COPE Act just after 10pm Thursday June 8. Among Republicans, 215 supported it, with only 8 opposed. A majority of Democrats, 108 versus 92, voted for passage. The one independent voted no. Earlier in the evening, an amendment seeking to strengthen the bill's "network neutrality" provisions failed 269-152. The amendment had been offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). Normally when major legislation is being passed by Congress, even late in the evening or early in the morning, there is a crowd of reporters following the event. Not so June 8. Shortly after the members left the floor for the evening, Drew Clark caught up with House Commerce Committee Chairman Barton (R-TX) in the speakers' gallery. Rep Barton was ready for a crowd, but instead gave Clark an exclusive interview. The "absolutely ecstatic" Barton addresses network neutrality, universal service, passage of telecom legislation in the Senate and FCC Chairman Martin.
http://www.drewclark.com/2006/06/joe-barton-fred-upton-ed-markey-and-me....
See also --
* No More Stinkin Moral Compasses!
"[Rep Bobby] Rush wouldn't know the definition of honesty if it crawled up his slimy backside."
http://www.riedelcommunications.blogspot.com/
Telecom Coverage Blackout