Benton RSS Feed
DOWN TO THE FOURTH ESTATE
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Jonathan Turley, George Washington University ]
[Commentary] This month, Congress is faced with a most inconvenient crime. With the recent disclosure of a massive secret database program run by the National Security Agency involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, members are confronted with a second intelligence operation that not only lacks congressional authorization but also appears patently unlawful. In December, the public learned that the NSA was engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance of overseas communications — an operation many experts believe is a clear federal crime ordered by the president more than 30 times. What is most striking about these programs is that they were revealed not by members of Congress but by members of the Fourth Estate: Journalists who confronted Congress with evidence of potentially illegal conduct by this president that was known to various congressional leaders. In response, President Bush has demanded to know who will rid him of these meddlesome whistleblowers, and various devout members have rushed forth with cudgels and codes in hand. Now, it appears Congress is finally acting — not to end alleged criminal acts by the administration, mind you, but to stop the public from learning about such alleged crimes in the future. Members are seeking to give the president the authority to continue to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance as they call for whistleblowers to be routed out. They also want new penalties to deter both reporters and their sources. The Framers gave us a free press as the final safety net if all other checks and balances in the three branches of government should fail. With the failure of both parties in Congress to exercise oversight responsibilities, the importance of a free press has been vividly demonstrated. The public now has a choice. It can live in self-imposed ignorance, or it can fight for an open society. Not hearing about alleged crimes by your government is certainly a comfort, but not having crimes occur would be an even greater one.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060517/oplede17.art.htm
Down to the Fourth Estate
BELLSOUTH, AT&T ADDED TO $200 BILLION PRIVACY LAWSUIT
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Anna Driver]
BellSouth and AT&T were named in a $200 billion lawsuit on Tuesday alleging that telecommunications companies violated privacy rights by turning over customer phone records for use in a U.S. government call-tracking program to detect terrorist plots. BellSouth and AT&T were added to the lawsuit seeking class-action status that was initially filed against Verizon Communications in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Friday. The amended lawsuit, filed on behalf of 26 plaintiffs in 18 states, seeks damages for the estimated 200 million customers of all three companies. "We're outraged at the actions of the NSA, the administration and the phone companies," Bruce Afran, a public interest lawyer from New Jersey, said at a news conference. He added that he wanted the companies to understand the massive financial exposure they had on this issue.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID...
SECOND PHONE COMPANY QUESTIONS 'USA TODAY' NSA STORY
[SOURCE: Associated Press]
Verizon denied Tuesday that it had received a request for customer phone records from the National Security Agency. "Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records," the New York-based phone company said. The denials by Verizon and BellSouth leaves AT&T as the sole company named in the USA Today article that hasn't denied involvement. On Thursday, San Antonio-based AT&T said it had "an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare," but said would only assist as allowed within the law. Asked about the denials, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) noted that telephone company executives will be called before the panel for a hearing. “We'll ask them under oath,†he said. “The thing that concerns me is some (companies) said yes and some said no†when asked to participate. “If the government really thought this was legal and necessary, why let some say yes and some say no? It's either legal and necessary, or it's not.â€
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con...
* Verizon Denies Turning Over Local Phone Data
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/washington/17phone.html
* More Phone Firms Fight Claims They Supplied Call Data to NSA
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114779339367054254.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
* Verizon Says It Did Not Give Customer Records to NSA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR200605...
* Verizon says it isn't giving call records to NSA
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060517/a_nsa17.art.htm
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=…
BOUCHER, GOODLATTE DISCUSS 'NETWORK NEUTRALITY' PLAN
[SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]
House Judiciary Committee members still have time to act on "network neutrality" even if Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) denies the committee a referral of pending legislation, Reps Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus, agreed. They believe the Judiciary Committee should have jurisdiction of net neutrality provisions in a Commerce Committee telecommunications bill. But even if Speaker Hastert decides otherwise, Rep Boucher said Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is likely to introduce legislation that would deal more aggressively with the subject than did the House Commerce Committee in its bill.
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-JETF1147808957124.html
Boucher, Goodlatte Discuss 'Network Neutrality' Plan
THE US WILL NOT MANDATE NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Forrester Research, AUTHOR: Maribel D. Lopez]
Many have called for the US government to mandate "network neutrality" that will ensure all Internet traffic is delivered equally, consumer choice is upheld, and Internet innovation is not stalled. But, it won't happen in the next three to five years. Why? Because no problem exists today and legislating neutrality will not give consumers the best results. In five years, when rich content taxes networks and broadband adoption approaches saturation, the Federal Communications Commission will take a more hands-on approach and intervene if a consumer's access to content and service is being denied. In the meantime, operators should err on the side of limited prioritization and content owners should build priority delivery into carriage agreements.
http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,39310,00.html
(available for fee only)
The US Will Not Mandate Net Neutrality
WHAT CONGRESS IS LEARNING ABOUT 'NETWORK NEUTRALITY'
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Holman Jenkins]
[Commentary] Google, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft, and Intel are spending millions to tie up Congress in a bogus debate about "net neutrality" at a time when other important telecom work is being left undone. Verizon and AT&T are the targets, thanks to superfast Internet connections they are just starting to provide to consumers over which to deliver TV in competition with cable and satellite. Being peddled is a kind of IP fetishism -- a claim that any network that uses Internet protocol must operate like the Internet consumers think they're used to today, one undivided pipe between them and the world's Web sites. Of course, that's not really what consumers are getting today. Your cable operator may sell you one, two or three megabits of capacity for a broadband connection, but most of his pipe is reserved for his TV offerings. Verizon and AT&T have made clear they, too, will reserve a big share of their new pipes for their own value-added services, namely TV, and for other content distributors who are willing to pay for access to it. That's how they hope to recoup their investment. Yet it's obvious that, even as they roll out their TV services, they will be under competitive pressure to keep giving consumers bigger and bigger pipes for their own Web browsing. How do we know? Because that's what cable is already doing, and because Ed Whitacre and Ivan Seidenberg aren't so dumb as to try to make a business model out of denying consumers Web content at home that they freely get at work or at the local Starbucks. And, c'mon, there's plenty of time for Congress to act if a real problem materializes. The issue is Internet survival. The real issue is where will the big bucks come from to create an Internet capable of handling the services now envisioned, let alone those not yet dreamed up. Think back to the beginnings of radio and TV: Those business models would never have worked if consumers had had to foot the bill directly for programming. It's clear today that giving consumers the kind of Internet that will support high-definition video and gaming will require the bill to be shared by companies with a stake in putting the new services in front of consumers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114782606290854866.html?mod=todays_us_op...
(requires subscription)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114782606290854866.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
CAN THE FCC SAVE NET NEUTRALITY?
[SOURCE: WebProNews, AUTHOR: Jason Lee Miller]
The chief complaints of the telecommunications industry regarding the heated Network Neutrality debate are that regulation limits their ability to compete, build out infrastructure, and innovate; that regulation is unnecessary as principles outlined by the FCC are sufficient to guard it and that telcos like Verizon have already publicly committed to them; and that Net Neutrality is still too poorly defined to write legislation around it. Interestingly, the last two notions are mutually exclusive: How can Net Neutrality principles be simultaneously committed to while being nebulous and ill defined? This logical conundrum works in their favor as well as their opposition. Such is the tricky language and nature of Net Neutrality, and reason as well that people just learning of the issue are having difficulty pulling it down to earth. The devil in the details is causing a gridlock in Congress as talking points become more direct, but more confusing. Legislators seem to be sticking with their contributors on the whole; telecoms and cable sticking to their best interests; advocates playing the role of voice of the people. Again, the last two notions are mutually exclusive. Colin Crowell, who works for Net Neutrality proponent Rep. Ed Markey's (D - MA), told WebProNews that legislation is necessary because the FCC's fourth connectivity principle was "unenforceable." "A chief concern," said Crowell, "is that they're going to charge people for things they had before (for free)." Also, Crowell is unconvinced of Verizon's public commitment to Network Neutrality principles. When Verizon merged with MCI, he said, the FCC approved the acquisition on condition they stick to Net Neutrality principles. Crowell said Verizon lobbied "vociferously" to ensure those requirements would sunset after 30 months. "If they were committed, why did they lobby that?"
http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/marketinginsider/wpn-50-2006051...
Can The FCC Save Net Neutrality?
IF IT'S NOT NEUTRAL IT'S NOT INTERNET
[SOURCE: Daniel Berninger, Tier1 Research]
[Commentary] The success of a proposal by AT&T and Verizon to end net neutrality does not threaten the Internet. The broadband customers of AT&T and Verizon will just no longer have access to the Internet. The development appropriately creates alarm among AT&T and Verizon's customers, but the combined customer bases of these companies represent less than 2% of the billion or so usersof the Internet. The fact access to the Internet requires net neutrality does not depend on laws passed by the US Congress or enforced by the FCC.Neutrality arises as a technical and business imperative facilitating the interconnection 250,000 independent networks that choose to participate in the Internet. Net neutrality will remain a requirement as long as it serves the interests of the global Internet community. The opposition to net neutrality arises like all regulatory debates as the means to raise prices, but people in the US already pay more for less bandwidth than citizens of Europe and Asia. Communication serves as an input to all economic activity, so expensive communications drags on the economy in the same way as high energy prices. Policy makers must decide between protecting the Bells 20th century business model or working to make sure US enjoys the benefits of the Internet. Internet traffic outside the US already dwarfs the traffic from within the US, and the failure of policymakers to defend net neutrality will only continue the trend of the US toward third world status in connectivity.
http://www.danielberninger.com/dbessays/2006/05/if-its-not-neutral-its-n...
* Information Highway Robbers
[SOURCE: InTheseTimes, AUTHOR: Joel Bleifuss]
[Commentary] What makes the Internet revolutionary is that it is democratic, open to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. That could soon change.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2653/
* Why Network Neutrality Is Important for the Future of Disaster Communication
http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/Taran/view?PostID=14026
If it's not Neutral it's not Internet
SENATE TELECOM HEARING WITNESS LIST
[SOURCE: US Senate Commerce Committee]
In the first of two hearings to review S. 2686, the Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006, the witnesses will be: Kyle McSlarrow, National Cable & Telecommunications Association; Walter McCormick, United States Telecom Association; Mayor Michael A. Guido, U.S. Conference of Mayors; Julia Johnson, Video Access Alliance; Gene Kimmelman, Consumers Union; Shirley Bloomfield, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association; former-Congressman Steve Largent, CTIA -- The Wireless Association; Joslyn Read, Satellite Industry Association; and Philip McClelland, Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate. Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:00 AM (eastern)
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&...
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_…
WHAT DOES $400,000 (PLUS) BUY THE BELLS?
[SOURCE: TPM Cafe, AUTHOR: Art Brodsky, Public Knowledge]
[Commentary] This Thursday, the Senate Commerce Committee will have its hearing on the 135-page telecom bill Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) introduced. The bill ignores the threats to a neutral and open Internet. Knowing this bill is up for discussion, what kind images and messages do the telephone companies want to present to Congress? Take a trip through one jam-packed edition of the Washington Post and see what about $400k will buy. Be warned. The journey has many twists and turns.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29907
* Debunking some Telco Disinformation
http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/511
* HandsOfftheInternet.com -- More Sock-Puppetry from the Telecom Ministry of Propaganda
http://www.saschameinrath.com/2006may16handsofftheinternet_com_more_sock...
* Telecom Companies Flip Flop on Net Neutrality, Regulation of the Internet
[Commentary] Congressman Barton said that his bill preserves the Federal enforcement of net neutrality. The Hands Off the Internet telecommunications coalition is encouraging people to send letters to Congressmen, and the very first line is "I am writing to ask you to oppose "Net Neutrality." And yet they are supporting Barton's COPE Act. This doesn't make any sense. If they are so opposed to government regulation of the Internet in the form of enforceable net neutrality, what happened in the last few days to suddenly cause them to become fans of government regulation of the Internet? Apparently the telcos were for net neutrality and before they were against it. Or maybe it's the other way around. I get so confused sometimes.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/16/151434/049
What Does $400,000 (plus) Buy the Bells?