U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–961 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 113–843 

PRESERVING AN OPEN INTERNET: 

RULES TO PROMOTE COMPETITION 

AND PROTECT MAIN STREET CONSUMERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 1, 2014 

BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Serial No. J–113–68 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

KRISTINE LUCIUS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 1, 2014, 10:07 A.M. 

STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER 

Page 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL MEMBER 

Welch, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont ... 3 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 21 

Copps, Hon. Michael, Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, Special Adviser to the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative, 

Common Cause, Washington, DC ....................................................................... 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Groeneveld, Lisa, Chief Operating Officer and Co-Owner, Logic Supply, Inc., 

South Burlington, Vermont ................................................................................. 12 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Orton, Cabot, Proprietor, The Vermont Country Store, Manchester Center, 

Vermont ................................................................................................................ 9 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Reid, Martha, State Librarian, State of Vermont, Department of Libraries, 

Montpelier, Vermont ............................................................................................ 7 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Heritage Foundation, The, James L. Gattuso, Senior Research Fellow in 

Regulatory Policy, statement .............................................................................. 38 

Vermont Realtors®, Donna Cusson, 2014 President, June 30, 2014, letter ....... 37 

(1) 

PRESERVING AN OPEN INTERNET: 

RULES TO PROMOTE COMPETITION 

AND PROTECT MAIN STREET CONSUMERS 

TUESDAY, JULY 1, 2014, 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., at Davis 

Center at the University of Vermont, 590 Main Street, Burlington, 

Vermont, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Leahy. 

Also Present: Representative Welch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everybody. I was telling some 

of the staff from Washington who had come up for this hearing 

that I am sure they are happy to come up to nice cool weather and 

get out of Washington and suddenly realized that it is almost as 

hot here, but it is nicer. The air is clearer. 

As somebody once came up from Washington with me from Department of Agriculture and was sitting on the front lawn of my 

home in Middlesex, where Congressman Welch has been before, 

and beautiful, clear day and look out across the mountains and I 

said, ‘‘Isn’t this nice?’’ He said, ‘‘Nope.’’ I said, ‘‘What do you mean?’’ 

He said, ‘‘I don’t like it.’’ I said, ‘‘What’s the matter?’’ He said, ‘‘I 

don’t like air I can’t see.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. So we are different in Vermont. But this is a 

great week in Vermont and all across the country. It is so nice for 

us all to be home and I know that Congressman Welch and Senator 

Sanders and I look forward to this. We are going to gather with 

friends and families, we will be at barbecues and parades and parties, celebrating the vision our founders put in motion over 200 

years ago. 

Americans and especially we Vermonters hold these core freedoms dear to us that were established all those years ago. But I 

have always felt, and I was brought up in a family where this was 

true, that chief among these freedoms are free expression and a 

free and open marketplace where competition would drive innovation. 
2 

Now, in the 21st century, these freedoms have been enhanced by 

one of the greatest tools ever created—the Internet. It has flourished into a central force in so many of our lives, because it does 

reflect the founders’ vision. It is founded on the principles of openness and competition. 

It has been the ultimate marketplace of ideas. Everybody has a 

voice, and products or services will succeed or fail based on their 

merits. It is a great success story. 

It is also a great gift to the world. Think of what it has done and 

its potential to spread freedom and democracy to every corner of 

the globe, and more and more totalitarian governments have found 

that they cannot silence voices. While they can close off one aspect 

of the Internet, it will open up somewhere else. 

But our country is protected by a Bill of Rights that guarantees 

that basic freedom. I think the Internet needs basic rules of the 

road to ensure that it remains open. I think open Internet principles are the Bill of Rights for the online world. 

I know many of you, I have talked to you in the past, you shared 

my dismay when the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the Federal Communication Commission’s 2010 open Internet rules. Those 

rules represent a basic level of protection for consumers online and 

in light of the court’s decision, the FCC is now considering how to 

restore open Internet protections. 

The debate that is happening today in Washington over net neutrality is critically important, but it should not be just in Washington. The reason I am holding this hearing here, this will become 

part of the record for the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington. A lot of you could not come to Washington to take part in 

it, but you can be here and your voices will be heard. 

The outcome of the debate is going to have a huge effect on small 

businesses, community institutions, and consumers. So it is crucial 

that we get this right. 

I do not want to see an Internet that is divided into the haves 

and the have-nots. I do not want to see an Internet where those 

who can afford to pay can muffle the voices of those who cannot. 

An online world that is split into fast lanes and slow lanes, where 

pay-to-play deals dictate who can reach consumers, is contrary to 

every single principle that I felt the Internet was based on. 

Last month I joined with Congresswoman Doris Matsui of California, a senior Member of the House, introducing legislation requiring the FCC to ban pay-to-play deals online. I am not going to 

endorse any effort to do otherwise, and your voices should be so 

heard. 

I have heard from thousands of Vermonters. Our little State has 

spoken very clearly and you have not minced words. I am delighted 

that you do not want to see the Internet dominated by a few large 

corporations. 

We have an excellent panel of witnesses who are going to testify 

firsthand, whether you are an expert like Commissioner Copps— 

and we were talking about how we spent time together on a trip 

with Hubert Humphrey and Fritz Hollings and Hugh Scott, the Republican Leader, and others where I got to celebrate my 35th birthday—or you are an operator of a small business like Mr. Orton and 
3 

Ms. Groeneveld, or a librarian like Ms. Reid, who knows how I care 

a great deal about libraries. It touches all of you. 

So I am also especially pleased that Congressman Welch is joining me here today and Haley Pero from Senator Sanders’ office is 

in the audience. 

Peter, why don’t I yield to you for any comments you might want 

to make and then we will start with Mr. Copps? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Representative WELCH. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. 

By the way, thanks so much for introducing that legislation and 

you got it out right after that court decision, and I think you gave 

a lot of people hope that we are going to keep the Internet open 

and accessible. 

One of the interests that I have is representing a rural State, 

there is an enormous economic, absolute urgency to us having an 

open Internet. Senator Leahy spoke about the First Amendment 

rights and access and we all share that urgency, but in a rural 

State—and by the way, I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee that has jurisdiction over this and I created a rural caucus—there are 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats—because a lot of 

us—even though there are enormous divisions on ideology between 

the parties down in Washington, there is a lot of common interest 

from those of us who represent rural areas. 

We are not going to have an economy in Vermont if we do not 

have an accessible Internet. We have got entrepreneurs here and 

we have got a couple in the audience who have shown what can 

be done in a small state far removed from markets if they have access to the quality tools that are necessary to put their creative energies to work and also tap into the real skills and talents that people in a rural state have. 

So I see this as absolutely essential to the future of Vermont’s 

economy, as well as rural America, and I happen to think rural 

America is a pretty good place. 

So that is another reason, Senator Leahy, I think this hearing 

is so timely. We have got folks here on the front lines whose access 

to the Internet is crucial to the jobs that they have created, the 

good jobs that we have in Vermont. 

So I look forward to their testimony and I look forward to working with you and Representative Matsui and try to make certain 

we keep this open. 

Chairman LEAHY. I know how important it is. At our farmhouse 

in Middlesex, we live on a dead-end dirt road, but I can also sit 

there and be communicating with my office in Washington and I 

can be reading the Irish Times in Dublin. I just happen to mention 

that. 

Representative WELCH. That is the paper of record in the Leahy 

household. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. So Michael Copps served as a member of the 

Federal Communications Commission from 2001 to 2011. He currently is Special Adviser to the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative of Common Cause. We first met when he was Chief of Staff 
4 

to Senator Fritz Hollings, one of my mentors in the Senate, and 

then Assistant Secretary of Commerce. He also serves on the Board 

of Directors of Free Press and Public Knowledge. 

Mr. Copps, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL COPPS, FORMER COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY REFORM 

INITIATIVE, COMMON CAUSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. COPPS. Chairman Leahy, Congressman Welch, good morning, 

and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to address this 

hearing on the crucial issue of how to guarantee an open Internet. 

Traveling outside of the Washington, DC, Beltway to hear from 

citizens who must live with the policies that are crafted in Washington, DC, is essential. I made it my priority to do that when I 

served as a Commissioner at the FCC. I wish the Presidency would 

do the same thing and come to Vermont on this issue. 

And I especially commend you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing 

that bill on keeping the Internet open by introducing legislation to 

prevent paid prioritization on the Internet. 

More and more people now understand that the Internet is the 

most opportunity-creating tool of our time. It is increasingly the 

door to jobs, education, health care, equal opportunity, and to the 

news and information that we need to sustain our civic dialogue. 

But the question now is opportunity for whom. Is the Net going 

to be the tool of the many that helps us all live better or will it 

become the playground of the privileged few that only widens the 

many divides that are creating stratified and unequal Americans? 

Are we heading toward an online future with fast lanes for the 

1 percent and slow lanes for the 99 percent? 

Well, it is decision time and it is decision time now, because the 

Federal Communications Commission is considering rules that 

would permit giant Internet service providers like Comcast, 

Verizon and AT&T to create fast lanes for their business partners 

and friends who can afford to pay what will inevitably be very 

heavy freight while startups and innovators and potential competitors are priced off the express lane. 

The fate of the Internet will be decided in the next few months 

and what is decided in those few months might be very, very difficult or impossible to undo. So this is the time now for concerned 

citizens to be speaking out. 

When gatekeeper control partitions the Internet, everyone other 

than the gatekeeper suffers. Consider what a tremendous engine 

the Internet could be for small business growth. You know that 

right here in Vermont, we have got Vermont Country Store who is 

going to testify this morning, we have all heard about Potlicker 

Kitchen and the delicious and delectable jams and jellies they sell 

online. 

Expensive fast lanes for the few could really jeopardize and ruin 

the entrepreneurial opportunities that companies like this have developed for themselves. 

Extend that across the country and you begin to see the enormous economic opportunity costs that gatekeeping entails. 
5 

The same gatekeeping forces will be able to throttle innovation 

in other areas by foreclosing new developments, for example, in distance learning that would grant rural schools of Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom access to state-of-the-art lectures from the university 

here in Burlington. 

We cannot build thousands of new needed businesses, we cannot 

have top-notch education for our kids, we cannot get America out 

of the economic rut it is in when the one tool that can help make 

it all happen is controlled by a handful of communications and 

media giants whose main concern is the bottom line of the company’s quarterly report. 

How did we get here? For openness, public policy has too often 

worked against the Internet. First, we witnessed years of telecommunications and media consolidation, wherein a few giant companies gobbled up small competitors and built monopoly markets 

across the Nation. They wielded armies of lobbyists and wheelbarrows filled with money to win government approval of these 

mergers and acquisitions, and the FCC almost always acquiesced. 

Second, the FCC consciously decided against meaningful public 

oversight of broadband and the Internet. In one of the strangest decisions ever made by a Federal agency, the Commission decided 

over a decade ago that the broadband infrastructure on which the 

Internet rides was not communications at all and was there outside 

all the consumer protections and common carriage requirements 

that are integral parts of the traditional telephone service that we 

all grew up with. 

Those protections were part of Title 2 of the Telecommunications 

Act, where they refused to put broadband, but that is where 

broadband telecommunications belongs and until the FCC puts 

them there, clearly and strongly, we are not going to have an open 

Internet. 

Title 2 classification is the prerequisite of an open Internet. It is 

the essential first step—it is not the guarantor of Internet freedom, 

it is the first step. There is no clever other new way to get this 

done might the FCC contemplate all sorts of new and novel ways. 

Once we classify broadband, then we have to go on from there 

to deal with other challenges to the open Internet, such as the 

interconnection and peering arrangements that determine how content accesses and gets distributed across the Net, because discrimination and blocking can take place upstream just as easily as in 

that last mile between the Internet service provider and your 

house, and I do not think consumers really care too much where 

that discrimination occurs. If it occurs, it costs them. 

Then, of course, and this goes back to my passion at the FCC, 

we have to find our way back to a more competitive broadband environment by saying no to the endless torrent of mergers and acquisitions that is distorting not just our communications, but our 

democracy. These combinations are a major reason why your country and mine has gone from broadband leader 15 years ago to 

broadband laggard today, number 15 in the world, according to the 

OECD. Some other rankings that measure different things like 

speed and price have us in the 20s and 30s, the 40s. I saw one the 

other day, 55th. 
6 

And now these telecom titans are proposing more mergers to further stifle competition, ration their broadband, and extract monopoly rents from consumers. 

In the end, this all comes back to democracy. Free expression 

and democratic engagement suffer in a gated Internet. Consigning 

alternative, nonprofit and dissenting voices to slow lanes makes it 

harder for users to access different kinds of information. 

Moreover, since we now use broadband to both consume and 

produce, paid prioritization schemes hinder the ability of citizens to 

speak out and really have their voices heard. 

An Internet controlled and managed for the benefit of the haves 

discriminates against our rights not just as consumers, but more 

importantly, as citizens. Allowing powerful ISPs or giant Internet 

companies to control what we see and share on the Internet is inimical to the health of our Nation. 

If an ISP can slow down or block those sites who refuse to play 

the game, if they can decide that some good cause or advocacy 

group they disagree with should be voted off the Net, then we have 

starved the nourishing potential of this technology and truncated 

the rights of citizens to share in a communications revolution that 

should be more about we the people than it is the privileged few. 

I want an Internet where B.T. Digger and its deep dive investigative journalism can get to me just as quickly as some huge corporation’s info team and Babble. 

Yes, I feel strongly about this. 

[Applause] 

Chairman LEAHY. I think that comes through. Go ahead. 

Mr. COPPS. And that is why I am criss-crossing the country on 

behalf of Common Cause and our allies in the public interest community to encourage citizens to speak up now to demand that the 

FCC ensure real Internet freedom. 

Millions have done so already, but millions more are needed for 

the battle. 

Whose Internet is it anyway and whose democracy is it? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your comments, 

and Representative King, and your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Copps appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. What we are going to do is have 

each of the witnesses testify and then Congressman Welch and I 

will ask questions. 

Martha Reid is the State Librarian of Vermont, a position she 

has held since 2008. She has heard me say how I had my first library card at the Kellogg Hubbard Library in Montpelier when I 

was 4 years old and I think the world of libraries and librarians. 

In her role, she focuses on library technology and the expansion 

of broadband for public libraries, something we would not have had 

any concept of when I had that library card. But she has spent 

more than 30 years working at public libraries. 

She is President of the Vermont Public Library Foundation, is a 

member of the Executive Board, Chief Officers of State Library 

Agencies. 

Ms. Reid, we are delighted you could be here. Please, go ahead. 
7 

STATEMENT OF MS. MARTHA REID, STATE LIBRARIAN, STATE 

OF VERMONT, DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARIES, MONTPELIER, 

VERMONT 

Ms. REID. It is a privilege to be here and hearing your remarks, 

we are in Common Cause. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today and recognizing that 

libraries are partners of small business and entrepreneurs, particularly in rural areas in Vermont and across the country. 

I am joined today in this room by members of the Vermont library community—they are sitting here in the front row—from our 

academic, school and public libraries. We are united in our belief 

that an open Internet is essential to our Nation’s freedom of 

speech, educational achievement, economic vitality, and equal access to information. 

An open Internet is fundamental for libraries to fulfill their mission to provide students, teachers and faculty and the general public, citizens of all ages and background equal access to information 

and to the wide variety of opportunities and resources made available via the Internet. 

It has always been and it remains today a core value of libraries 

to preserve the free flow of information. Intellectual freedom, the 

right of citizens to have access to information, and that includes information that may be controversial, is a hallmark of our democracy, and of libraries. 

Currently, the Internet is freely and equitably accessible to all 

and it needs to stay that way. 

Vermont is a state of small rural communities. We have 183 public libraries, more libraries per capita than any other state. Public 

libraries are often the only place in town to offer free Internet access and they are the go-to places for jobseekers, independent 

learners, researchers, and local entrepreneurs. 

Nearly all public libraries in this country offer free Internet access and public wi-fi. 

In Vermont, citizens can use their personal public library card to 

log on from any computer device to the statewide Vermont online 

library, a collection of licensed, subscription-based resources, including full text articles from magazines and newspapers, I think 

including the Dublin Times, health information, and online tools 

for creating resumes and business plans, and all Vermonters have 

access via their library card to over 500 online classes in a program 

called Universal Class, self-paced learning with live remote instructors on topics that range from digital photography and knitting to 

astronomy, bookkeeping and business writing. 

Our libraries provide this no-fee access, leveling the playing field 

for citizens and entrepreneurs who need these learning and training opportunities. 

Technologies now permit our libraries and individuals to create 

and disseminate their own information online. We are not just providers or consumers of information, but we are creators as well. 

This is another aspect of the Internet necessitating network neutrality so that all voices can be heard and that the benefits of the 

Internet can be realized by all, not just those who can pay. 

In Vermont, 53 public libraries have high-speed fiber broadband 

thanks to a Federal BTOP grant. In Readsboro, with a population 
8 

of 814, a local entrepreneur with a home-based business has started doing his work at the public library because the fiber connection 

is so fast and efficient. 

National studies show that citizens often choose to use public library Internet and wi-fi even if they have it at home. 

And in the past year, 14 Vermont public libraries—and I would 

like to note that the Kellogg Hubbard and the Hartland Public Library are among those 14—have launched free community 

videoconferencing. These libraries have hosted no-fee online distance interactive business seminars, distance job interviews for individuals, and online meetings and trainings. 

This is a Web-based service, so unimpeded Internet access is critical. 

Internet resources must be both affordable for libraries and freely accessible to those we serve. Without the open Internet, there is 

a danger that libraries will face higher service charges for so-called 

premium online information services, and this would, in turn, place 

limitations on the amount or the quality of information that libraries can provide to their users. 

There simply cannot be a system of tiered Internet access in this 

country that would set limits on bandwidth or speed because of 

paid prioritized transmission. 

Such a scheme would only increase the gap that already exists 

between the haves and the have-nots and would create friction and, 

in some cases, insurmountable obstacles for citizens to get the information they need. 

Bowing to powerful corporate interests that would take control of 

the Internet pipes would put libraries and the millions of citizens 

they serve at risk. Imagine the consequences. Libraries would be 

forced to just turn off access to vital information for those who need 

it most. 

We cannot afford a society where information is available to only 

those who have deep pockets. 

I have spent my entire professional life working in libraries to 

ensure that information resources are freely available to all citizens 

on an equal basis. All Americans, including the most 

disenfranchised citizens, those who would have no way to access 

the Internet without the library, need to be able to use Internet resources on an equal footing. 

Here is the bottom line. We need legally enforceable rules that 

will protect the open Internet. I am addressing this to all the Senators on the Judiciary Committee. Senators, you have an opportunity to do the right thing for America. You have a choice—to advance the work of our libraries and other learning institutions and 

to protect citizen access to the Internet or to take that right away 

and to give these opportunities only to those citizens or entities 

which can pay. 

As a representative of the State of Vermont who works with libraries statewide and with other state librarians across the country 

and as an American citizen, I expect you, the Members of this 

Committee, to make the decision that is best for all of us and 

which strengthens our country. 
9 

Please champion net neutrality and do all you can to support an 

open Internet. Americans everywhere will thank you for your vision and your steadfast defense of our most cherished freedoms. 

And I want to thank you, Senator Leahy, for your leadership on 

this issue and your introduction with Congresswoman Matsui of 

the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014. It takes 

us in the right direction and I applaud you for your stance on supporting the open Internet. 

Thank you. 

[Applause] 

[The prepared statement of Martha Reid appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Both Congressman Welch and I 

want to keep an open Internet. So thank you so much for your testimony. 

Cabot Orton is proprietor of the Vermont Country Store, which 

the Orton family has run entirely from Vermont for generations. 

He has heard me tell about coming there as a child with my parents. It was a little bit different then. You had a small mail order 

business and you would mail out catalogs, and it is a little bit different today. 

Vermont Country Store bills itself as the purveyors of the practical and hard-to-find. It has its two retail stores, but it has customers all around the world because of its website. 

So, Mr. Orton, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CABOT ORTON, PROPRIETOR, THE VERMONT 

COUNTRY STORE, MANCHESTER CENTER, VERMONT 

Mr. ORTON. Thank you and good morning. Thanks, Senator 

Leahy, for creating a public forum of extraordinary importance to 

discuss a free and equal Internet for businesses of all sizes. 

As Vermont business owners, my family and I deeply appreciate 

the opportunity to share our perspective on a vital national issue. 

We are honored by the Senator’s invitation to support the interests 

of small companies here in Vermont and all across America. 

For over 70 years, our family business, the Vermont Country 

Store, has delighted generations of customers by selling hard-tofind products through the mail. Following in the footsteps of our 

dad, Lyman, my brothers, Gardner, Eliot and I are the third generation of our family to run the business started by our grandparents, Vrest and Mildred. 

In the fall of 1945, Vrest printed our very first run of catalogs 

on the printing press in his garage and Mildred mailed them out 

to folks on her Christmas card list. 

The following spring, Vrest opened our now famous retail store 

in Weston. He added the Bryant House Restaurant in 1959, a second store in Rockingham in 1968. Today we are known as the purveyors of the practical and hard-to-find, delighting countless customers of all ages with memories of earlier, simpler times. 

For most of our history as storekeepers, we have relied on the 

mail to do business with our customers. Mail was affordable, dependable and available on the same terms to everyone in America. 

Over 100 years ago, rural free delivery brought mail and packages to rural farm families, transforming the U.S. Postal Service as 
10 

an engine of commerce that enabled the fastest growth of free enterprise in human history. 

With the later commitment to rural electrification and the development of the interstate highway system, a spectacular new opportunity was created for every citizen, no matter where they lived, 

and for every business, no matter how prosperous or politically connected. 

Contrary to conventional wisdom, these public systems worked to 

the betterment of private enterprise by connecting people in unprecedented ways while creating a level playing field for all. 

Thanks in no small part to this remarkable infrastructure, the 

Vermont Country Store was able to grow and thrive, all while remaining based in the tiny rural village of Weston, Vermont. 

To this day, our entire company is based solely here in Vermont, 

from which we answer every call and mail every package. 

Between our two stores, our office in Manchester, and our distribution center in North Clarendon, every one of our 450 employees works here in the Green Mountain State. 

Today our business depends dearly on the Internet. We rely on 

the Web to display our merchandise to customers, to connect with 

new audiences, and to transact a large portion of our sales. 

Just 10 years ago, we received upwards of 60,000 handwritten 

letters a year from customers who would write us looking for hardto-find items or just to share stories and memories. 

Chairman LEAHY. No wonder you need 450 employees. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ORTON. It is a lot of reading. Nowadays, most of that comes 

in the form of e-mail and it is largely from customers who placed 

their orders with us over the Internet. We are no strangers to technology nor do we wish to escape the forces of change. In fact, Internet sales have grown to represent 40 percent of our business. 

We have all become accustomed to using the Internet for just 

about everything and we take it for granted, just like mail, electricity and highways. 

In reality, the Internet, as we know it today, is a recent development and it is relied upon universally by companies and consumers 

as a public resource. 

Fully one-third of our employees are involved in supporting customer transactions made over the Internet not only because it 

drives sales, but because so many of our customers, young and old, 

use the Internet as their primary means of doing business with us. 

Most of our customers still receive catalogs from us in the mail. 

Many of them still place their orders over the phone or even on a 

paper form. But more folks than ever connected with us for the 

very first time on the Internet, never having received a catalog at 

all, apparently unaware we have two marvelous stores right here 

in Vermont. 

We know this demand will only grow over time. If we want to 

continue to prosper as a Vermont-based company, we must keep 

pace with our customers’ need and desire to do business with us 

over the Internet. 

Our success depends on providing an exceptional online experience our customers enjoy and trust. 
11 

We believe that the new rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission will change all this for the Vermont Country 

Store and for countless small businesses. We do not want to imagine an America with two Internets, a fast one for giant corporations, a slow one for everybody else. 

We do not want to imagine being held for ransom by telecom and 

cable monopolies just to reach our customers with the same speed 

and convenience as international conglomerates. 

In our view, the proposed FCC rule changes would turn what is 

now a level playing field for businesses of all sizes into one where 

the biggest companies with the deepest pockets can get their 

Website content to customers faster than everyone else. 

Worse, we know from our own experience that in the hearts and 

minds of our customers, a slower marginalized Website may not 

exist at all. 

A small business Website that is no longer protected from giant 

Internet tollkeepers would have one choice—pay to play. Failing 

that, a company becomes the proverbial tree falling in a forest with 

no one there to hear it. 

We would be hard-pressed to imagine a freer, more open Internet 

than the one we all depend upon today. You cannot make it much 

more equal than it already is. 

This is why rules creating different standards of Internet access 

would jeopardize that equality. It is not hard to imagine small 

businesses forced to suffer demolition by neglect in the Internet 

slow lane or to endure ruinous costs to squeeze into the Internet 

fast lane with the big guys. That is a lose-lose proposition that 

would push small businesses, increasingly dependent on the Internet, to close up shop for good. 

If consumer spending represents 70 percent of the American 

economy and two-thirds of our economy consists of small businesses that ultimately depend on the Internet, it is not much of a 

stretch to think of the Internet as a vital public resource. 

Fair and equal access to the Internet is subsequently paramount 

to the strength of our economy. Perhaps more troubling is the prospect of stifling innovation and creativity, which are the lifeblood of 

small businesses in Vermont and everywhere in America. My 

grandparents started the Vermont Country Store with a dream, a 

printing press, and a Post Office. 

That fledgling enterprise became vastly more than Vrest and 

Mildred ever anticipated. In so many ways, the Internet has transformed our daily lives. It has enabled even the smallest homebased businesses to reach virtually unlimited audiences. 

Even the largest Internet companies are a testament to magnificent possibilities that would never have materialized had the Internet at its inception been subject to the FCC rules now being contemplated. 

To safeguard Internet commerce from a troubling future, to guarantee that every person with an idea and real perseverance has a 

fair shake at achieving the American dream, we support Senator 

Leahy’s legislation. 

When enacted, it will keep the biggest corporations from gaming 

the system and seizing unfair access to Internet fast lanes simply 

because they have the money to buy them. 
12 

This legislation will let small businesses on Main Street, USA 

continue to reach customers anywhere in America on the same 

terms as the Fortune 500, just as we could over the phone and 

through the mail for more than a century. 

Let us be clear. We are not asking for special treatment or for 

incentives or for subsidies. All the small business community asks 

is simply to preserve and protect Internet commerce as it exists 

today, which we think has served all businesses remarkably well. 

We all know how change happens—gradually, then suddenly. We 

embrace change wholeheartedly. After all, folks who miss the 

things that change leaves behind tend to be some of our best customers. But we also know that disruptive changes like those proposed by the FCC almost always have unintended consequences. 

We are asking those who serve us in government to pause, consider the repercussions and enact legislation that protects the interests of all businesses, great and small. Time and again, uniquely 

American phenomenon of equal access to public resources like the 

Internet has empowered entrepreneurs to advance the Nation. 

Just keep the playing field level and let free enterprise do what 

it does best—enrich the human condition. 

[Applause] 

[The prepared statement of Cabot Orton appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Orton. Thank you 

very much. 

I would note that in Washington, we hold hearings, we have to 

maintain a no applause rule, but I know Congressman Welch will 

not object if I do not use that rule here where we are back home 

in Vermont. 

Representative WELCH. No. I notice you are under the table clapping. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. He caught me. 

Our next witness is Lisa Groeneveld. She is the co-owner and 

chief operating officer of Logic Supply, a Vermont-based designer 

and manufacturer of industrial computers, that has a global customer base. 

I would also note she is a Vermont native, with years of experience in the IT industry. 

Ms. Groeneveld, please go ahead, and then we will open it up to 

questions. 

STATEMENT OF MS. LISA GROENEVELD, CHIEF OPERATING 

OFFICER AND CO-OWNER, LOGIC SUPPLY, INC., SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Ms. GROENEVELD. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

Logic Supply would like to thank the Committee for inviting us 

to testify today, as well as everyone who has taken the time to be 

here today. Thank you all for attending. 

At Logic Supply, we design and manufacture industrial computers. Because we market and sell them online, our Website 

serves as the basis for our entire revenue stream, 100 percent of 

our revenue, every penny. 
13 

Our ultra-reliable computers resist dust, heat and vibration. 

They can be found in manufacturing environments, in the mining 

industry, in security and surveillance systems, and even in NASA 

robots. 

Our headquarters are in South Burlington, Vermont and we have 

offices in the Netherlands and Taiwan. We have customers on 

every continent, including Antarctica, and we have been business 

for 11 years. 

We currently have 60 employees worldwide and we continue to 

grow. Over 10 years ago, unlike most business-to-business hardware companies, we started our company purely online. 

We knew our customers needed a new way to find, configure and 

purchase their hardware solutions, and the Internet provided the 

easiest, most effective means to do so because it was open and fair 

and equally accessible. 

Our vision has met with substantial success. We have grown at 

a rate of 25 percent per year and we are currently breaking ground 

on a 20,000-square foot addition to our headquarters. And over the 

past year, we have had nearly one million visits to our Websites. 

Logic Supply’s Internet strategy has been the key to our success. 

It has allowed a small Vermont company to reach global markets 

and become an industry leader serving Fortune 500 companies and 

competing against Fortune 500 companies. 

We are here today because we feel that the open and fair Internet infrastructure that we have relied on is under threat. As Logic 

Supply’s co-owner and COO, I am here to speak out for Net neutrality and specifically against paid prioritization, also known as 

fast lanes. 

We are concerned that infrastructure providers are changing the 

rules and abandoning the practices that have allowed Logic Supply 

and many other companies in Vermont and the United States to 

thrive. 

As a company, Logic Supply is informed by our four core values—open, fair, independent and innovative. Based on our current 

knowledge of fast lanes, we feel they are neither open nor fair, and 

so we are publicly stating our opposition to them today. 

We know the following. Because we are geeks, we know these 

things. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GROENEVELD. A fast lane will not slow other traffic down, 

but speed is relative. 

Certain traffic will feel slower if other traffic is going faster. 

Fast Websites rank higher than slow Websites in search engine 

results, Google, Yahoo, Bing, all of those are search engines. 

No one looks past the first page of Google results, no one. 

Customers expect Websites to be fast and efficient. If a Website 

feels slow, again, speed is relative, customers bounce, purchases 

are abandoned, and revenue is lost. 

Given the above, we see fast lanes giving certain players a distinct advantage, but an advantage not based on their superior 

product or services, but on their ability or willingness to pay. 

Furthermore, established companies like Logic Supply could pay 

to gain access to the fast lane. We certainly could. But that does 

not necessarily make it right. Many early stage companies cannot. 
14 

Is that an Internet infrastructure that rewards innovation? Paying for fast lanes would mean shifting funds away from genuinely 

value-creating activities like research and developing and hiring. It 

would increase the cost of doing business, in our opinion, without 

any real improvement in efficiencies or competitiveness, and no 

particular value-add to our customers. 

Perhaps most importantly, fast lanes seem to fundamentally violate two of our core values, open and fair, which is simply a level 

playing field for everyone. 

Without an open and fair Internet based on equal access, our 

business might not even exist today. We started Logic Supply with 

the money in our checking account. We used that money to buy 

motherboards, not preferential treatment for our Website traffic. 

In conclusion, we appear today to express our deep interest in 

ensuring an open and fair Internet based on equal access, an Internet where all companies and organizations have an opportunity to 

compete on the merit of their products, services, knowledge base, 

and talents. 

We, therefore, support any efforts that prohibit fast lanes. 

Thank you. 

[Applause] 

[The prepared statement of Lisa Groeneveld appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I am struck by the fact that both you and Mr. 

Orton, in so many words, while your companies could afford to pay 

for fast lane, you are opposed to that. You want it to be fair to everybody. 

Commissioner Copps, you talked, of course, about fast lanes and 

it is obvious how you feel about them. Do you believe the—well, we 

talked about the legislation that Congresswoman Matsui and I and 

others have to prevent this. 

Do you believe the FCC has the authority to ban those kinds of 

agreements, fast lane agreements? 

Mr. COPPS. Yes. I do believe the FCC has the authority to do 

that. I think in order to accomplish that, it is going to have to find 

the strongest foundation within the telecommunications law upon 

which to rest that authority. That authority, to my mind and many 

others, exists in Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act. 

Without getting in the weeds, and you can get in the weeds very 

quickly on this subject, what happened back in 2002 when Chairman Powell was Chairman of the Commission, his majority decided 

that cable modem and, a couple of years later, the telephone service, too, was an information service, but not a telecommunications 

service. So they took it out of Title 2. 

Title 2 is where generations of advocates have worked to build 

privacy protections, consumer protections, the assurance of reasonably comparable services in rural areas to urban areas, to make 

sure that every American had access to telecommunications, and 

instead they put it in this never never land where there was no 

sound basis. 

When the D.C. Court of Appeals recently upended or refused to 

sanction or approve the FCC’s Net neutrality rules, which were not 

all that great in the first place, but at least there was something, 

they said if you are going to try to put these consumer protections 
15 

on things in the broadband, you should have put it under Title 2, 

basically. It was almost an invitation. 

Chairman LEAHY. But you are saying it can be done. 

Mr. COPPS. It can be done and should be done and must be done. 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Reid, you and I have talked about libraries before and I think there is no greater thrill than watching not 

only my grandchildren, but young people coming into libraries and 

being exposed to everything that is there, far more than we had 

when I was a kid. I even volunteered one day at the reading hour 

for 4- and 5- and 6-year-olds at the Kellogg Hubbard on Saturday 

morning and got stumped on the question, but it was helpful because I was able to pick up my phone, call for help, and the door 

opens, in walked Batman. 

Now, you should have seen the eyes on those children. Michael, 

I will explain that to you later. A lot of the Vermonters know 

where this all came from. Probably the best part was he thanked 

them for their help on the way out and they all said, ‘‘You’re welcome, Mr. Batman.’’ 

But you think of rural areas, the town I lived in had 1,600 people. There are some a lot smaller. You can talk about Readsboro 

and so on. 

Who do you think stands to lose the most if we have a two-tiered 

system? 

Ms. REID. I would say citizens all across the board and that is 

citizens that own small businesses, citizens who have ideas about 

innovation or creating businesses. It is people that are involved in 

instruction, instruction design. It is students. 

I think we are all the losers in this. I think we all use the term 

‘‘level playing field’’ and that really says it. I think that this value 

that libraries have had way before the Internet ever came into our 

midst or even into our thoughts, the premise remains the same. It 

is equal access to information and to all that the Internet gives us. 

The fact that now we are able to create our own content and 

upload it to the Internet and share it with the world is quite astounding that we can do that in a keystroke, and that is, I think, 

a core piece of a healthy economy, of a diverse and engaged citizenry. 

So I think we would all be the losers. 

Chairman LEAHY. I often walk across the street in Washington 

to the Library of Congress. I love going in there. But I also think 

that if I am using a computer in the Library of Congress or if I 

am using a computer in Readsboro or at the Kellogg Hubbard, I 

can access the same things just as quickly. That is worth keeping. 

Ms. REID. Absolutely. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Ms. REID. It is vital. And I would say—you talked about rural 

areas in Vermont and this is true for rural areas all across the 

country, that is vital to have that speed and capacity, and, also, in 

our urban areas, those little neighborhood libraries are also really 

critical for what happens in those communities and neighborhoods. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Orton, your e-commerce site, it was pretty 

small when you started. I think you might have wished for it to 

turn out as well as it has, but I think that you never really knew 
16 

at that point that it might become this great. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. ORTON. That is a fair statement. It is. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, let me ask you then this follow-up. 

Would you have been handicapped in starting out if it was a payto-play kind of procedure where large companies could, in effect, 

keep you out because they can afford the extra costs, but you might 

not have been able to at that time? 

Mr. ORTON. We would have been unquestionably handicapped. At 

the end of the day, everything we do has to be centered around a 

value proposition to our customers. That is it. If we are not doing 

that, we do not really have a reason to exist. 

And their expectations change faster than we can keep pace with 

because large companies are able to do things and command systems that we have to struggle to access. And so none of us really 

operate in a vacuum anymore and if we cannot deliver content to 

our customers every bit as fast and with as much convenience as 

gigantic retailers, they will have very negative feelings about our 

ability to provide them with the service. 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Groeneveld, you are reaching customers 

all over the world. You understand your business far better than 

I or anybody else here, but would it also be fair to say that if even 

your customers were facing a two-tier system, you would be handicapped in carrying out your own business. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. GROENEVELD. We would be. As I mentioned during my testimony, Logic Supply would absolutely pay to join the fast lanes, but 

we would not do so willingly. It would force us to reallocate our investment money and every company only has limited funds available for investment away from other real value-creating activities. 

Chairman LEAHY. But those other companies, too, are going to be 

at a disadvantage. 

Ms. GROENEVELD. Our largest competitors are Taiwanese. They 

are $20 billion companies. It would not put them at a disadvantage 

for anything. 

Chairman LEAHY. They are not going to be, but new ones would 

be. 

Ms. GROENEVELD. Yes. New ones would be. 

Chairman LEAHY. But that $20 billion company, you say they are 

willing to play by the same rules if everybody is equal. 

Ms. GROENEVELD. They are Taiwanese. They would happily buy 

fast lanes if they could into the United States. It would definitely 

disadvantage smaller companies. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Congressman Welch. 

Representative WELCH. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

This is a great panel. I think being able to testify in air you cannot see I think is probably better, coming from Washington. 

Chairman LEAHY. And this is going to be part of the record of 

the Senate Judiciary Committee and I am already thinking, in my 

mind, the summary and report I am going to give to each Member 

of the Judiciary Committee in both parties. And one of the advantages of being Chairman, they actually will read it. 

[Laughter.] 
17 

Representative WELCH. And we will share that with Congresswoman Matsui, with whom I serve on the Telecom Subcommittee. 

Mr. Orton, you made an analogy that I thought was so terrific. 

It was about rural free delivery, the rural electrification, and interstate highways. These are all public goods. 

None of these would have been built without every one of us as 

taxpayers paying for it. 

The case was made against rural free delivery, against rural 

electrification, and, to some extent, against the interstate highways, that why are you spending so much money to get that last 

mile of interstate, that last electrical line to the most rural community in Readsboro or Hartland or why are you putting a post office 

in a remote community. 

The reason we did it was because we are all in it together. We 

are all citizens. And if we are going to have enterprise that is going 

to, in your words, enrich the human condition, then the tool that 

is necessary to do that has to be available to anyone who wants to 

give that a shot. And actually, that sounds to me like a really good 

analogy, Senator Leahy, about what is at stake here. 

So I just want to thank you all, but I thought that was really, 

for me a very compelling sort of framework. 

Now, I will ask each of you a question. Mr. Copps, thank you for 

your testimony. On a practical level, what I heard you say is you 

think the FCC made a mistake in the Powell era in not putting 

this in Title 2. 

That is going to be a challenge. Mr. Wheeler, when he was in our 

committee, indicated that even though he is opening up this rule, 

he is solidly in support of Net neutrality, as we would define it. 

But the question is, there are some folks who do not like regulation for bad reasons, some who do not like—with regulation, you 

can overdo it. 

The issue that they are starting to raise is whether or not it 

would absolutely be necessary as a condition of maintaining that 

neutrality that it be in Title 2, where there is some potential in the 

minds of some that that would actually stifle some innovation. 

So the goal here is Net neutrality. Are there different ways in 

which that could be achieved? 

Mr. COPPS. Well, let us keep in mind, first of all, that right now, 

the way things stand since the D.C. court threw out the Net neutrality rules, there is nothing, zero regulation to prevent any large 

provider from blocking, degrading or speeding up its affiliates 

Internet transmission. 

So we start out not overly regulated. We start off with no regulation. Yes, it is not, in my mind, so much a question of how we are 

going to regulate it, but whether we are going to regulate it, and 

I think the only way you get to, yes, we are is through Title 2, because that is the only one on the final analysis, I think, that has 

a chance of withstanding court scrutiny. 

Once we have that weather, then, yes, of course, we can look at— 

if you want to call it late touch Title 2 regulation or whatever. Nobody is saying that your computer is the same as an old crank telephone in plain old telephone service days back in the 1930s or the 

1940s. Of course, this is different. 
18 

But we have the authority under Title 2 to forebear us from 

many of those regulations of plain old telephone service or to craft 

new regulations that are precisely aimed at this high tech. 

Representative WELCH. Or could there just be legislation that 

made it—prohibited a deviation from Net neutrality, maintaining 

access for rural as well as small users, rural users as well as—— 

Mr. COPPS. Well, I think legislation always helps, but I think the 

action right now, although I think the Congress can have a tremendous impact on the FCC through its oversight responsibilities, but 

the action is between now and the end of the year at the FCC and 

what Mr. Wheeler and whatever majority he can cobble together 

vote. It is going to be mighty hard to undo 2, 3, 4 years down the 

line once these gatekeepers have further consolidated their power 

and further enhance their gatekeeping authority. 

Representative WELCH. Thank you. 

Ms. Reid, has the access and availability of high-speed Internet 

in our libraries increased the traffic of young people, in particular, 

to our libraries? 

Ms. REID. It is interesting. It can be hard to track that. Where 

we can track the number of books that get checked out of the library, the number of people that walk through the door, the number of people that are logging on or downloading content, like an 

e-book or an e-audio book is a little bit harder to track or the number of people that are using wi-fi. That number is really increasing. 

We see lots of people bringing in their tablets or laptops to use 

that wi-fi connection and the numbers are tough to come by. 

Young people, I think, for sure, I think the more services that we 

can put on mobile devices, the more attraction we will have for 

young people. Public libraries are doing programming for teens in 

libraries using Wiis and all kinds of technology. 

The maker space movement in libraries is a big deal these days, 

so that people are coming in, using libraries for learning opportunities that—where there is not even a book around. It is all technology. 

Representative WELCH. They just had a maker space event at the 

White House I think about a week or 2 weeks ago. 

Ms. REID. I had not heard that. That is great. 

Representative WELCH. Well, thank you. 

And I am going to ask you, Ms. Groeneveld, you had said something that indicated that even if the second tier speed was pretty 

good, consumers notice the difference. So it is not a question of 

whether you are pretty good, pretty good is not good enough. Is 

that more or less what you are saying, that the perception of the 

user of the Internet is to go for the higher speed if you comparatively are slower, even though it is really fast, that is not good 

enough. 

So I just want you to elaborate on that, because that seems to 

be the very practical challenge that a business would face, and you 

have got the experience. 

Ms. GROENEVELD. I will use the analogy of the highway and it 

is almost as if you are driving down that two-lane highway and everyone is going 55, you feel pretty happy until someone builds their 

own lane and they can go 100. 
19 

You are not going any slower. You cannot get into the lane going 

100. It feels slower. That speed is relative. People will leave your 

site if it just feels slower to them in relation to another site that 

might feel faster, and that is the inequity that Logic Supply wants 

to avoid with fast lanes. 

Representative WELCH. So you are willing to compete on your 

product and then, of course,. there is the whole thing about designing your Website to make it user-friendly. That is your burden. But 

you want, when you are on the Internet, your speed to be as fast 

as your $20 billion competitor. 

Ms. GROENEVELD. Right. If you do not want your customer to be 

making judgments about the value of your product or service in a 

realm outside of your control. 

Of course, as I mentioned earlier to Senator Leahy, Logic Supply 

would absolutely, under duress, pay for fast lanes, but it would pervert the—it would pervert our ability to give value-added services 

to our customer. 

Representative WELCH. Let me ask about that, too. You would if 

you had to because it is a survival issue and you do not have any 

choice. 

Ms. GROENEVELD. Yes. 

Representative WELCH. So you would do that. But then you are 

just put in a squeeze in that situation. I mean, you are paying because you have to, not because you are getting more value. 

Ms. GROENEVELD. Certainly not the business and certainly not 

the consumer. No one benefits from it. Practically and technically 

speaking, no one really benefits from it. 

Representative WELCH. Mr. Orton, the story of Vermont Country 

Store, it has no business existing, right? You are in tiny little Weston. But you had the Post Office, you had electricity, and you had 

the interstate, and now you have the Internet. 

All those were public goods, publicly created, and then you had 

your grandparents, parents, and you with your brothers, and you 

are making it work, which is a pretty astonishing story. 

But just the same question I had for Lisa. What would happen 

to you if there was a fast lane/slow lane situation? 

Mr. ORTON. On the surface, it sounds reasonable and logical that 

you pay more, you get faster service. When it is formalized, it becomes a gameable, leverageable opportunity for the biggest players. 

And what really concerns us is that incremental rates of speed are 

always relative, from the customers’ perspective, from all of our 

perspective. And we are spending a lot of time talking about desktop Websites here, but so far nobody has mentioned mobile. 

For retailers like us, that is the future. Mobile devices are even 

more of a limited window into the Internet from the customer’s perspective than desktop. Speed is even more of a critical component 

of their experience. 

So every fractional delay in downloading a site or downloading 

content between two choices always, always means that the customer will wind up going with the faster, easier choice. 

Put another way, abandonment is death for a small Website. I 

will relate an anecdote, because it is still strikes me as so—it is 

emblematic of everything about change in the Web, the technology. 
20 

A few years ago we noticed something really odd. There was a 

huge purchasing spike taking place at 10 at night and it was coming from customers with iPads and they were buying the kinds of 

things that normally would be purchased by customers who would 

use the catalog or even write in a mail form, a paper form. It was 

odd. And we realized that it is all our mothers and grandmothers 

who got an iPad for Christmas. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ORTON. It was their first computer ever, their first e-mail 

ever, the first time they ever shared photos of their grandkids on 

Facebook, and they were in bed, 10 at night with the iPad instead 

of the book next to the bed or a stack of catalogs, and the world 

changed. 

Representative WELCH. Well, thank you all very much. Thank 

you. 

Chairman LEAHY. I want to thank you all, too. This actually has 

been fascinating, more so than—usually, the hearings we have in 

Washington, every Member of the Committee is supposed to be on 

four different committees, as Commissioner Copps remembers from 

his days in the Senate, and so you cannot pay attention. 

This has actually been enjoyable and not all hearings are. I do 

not ever let that word get out. But I thank you all. 

I will keep the record open for a week for further testimony, and 

you will get copies of your testimony if you wanted to add to it or 

subtract from it, you can. 

I also want to thank the University of Vermont for hosting this 

hearing—it is nice to have a nice place like this for it—and Jeff 

Couture from the Vermont Tech Alliance for the input he and his 

members gave me in putting this hearing together, my staff from 

both Vermont and Washington who worked hard on this, Champlain College with insights its faculty provided, and I especially 

want to thank my good friend, Peter Welch, for taking the time to 

be here, because it is interesting coming from a state like ours, people actually will listen, and your testimony has helped. 

So, Peter, thank you. And all of you, thank you very much. We 

will stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(21) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
22 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL COPPS
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTHA REID
29 
30 
31 
32 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CABOT ORTON
33 
34 
35 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA GROENEVELD
36 
37 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
38 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
39 
40 
41 

Æ