U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–225 PDF 2006

NETWORK NEUTRALITY: COMPETITION,

INNOVATION, AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ACCESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

TASK FORCE ON TELECOM AND ANTITRUST

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 25, 2006

Serial No. 109–109

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel

—————

Note: The Task Force on Telecom and Antitrust was established on March 26, 2006 and consists of all the Members of the full Judiciary Committee. 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 25, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .......................................... 1

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3

WITNESSES 

Mr. Paul Misener, Vice President for Global Public Policy, Amazon.com 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Mr. Earl W. Comstock, President and Chief Executive Officer, COMPTEL 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17

Mr. Walter B. McCormick, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, United 

States Telecom Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 47

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 49

Mr. Timothy Wu, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 53

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 93

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of Virginia, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 93

Prepared Statement of Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, on behalf of Consumer Federation of America, the Free 

Press, and the Consumers Union ....................................................................... 94

Prepared Statement of Kyle McSlarrow, President and CEO, National Cable 

& Telecommunications Association .................................................................... 101

Press Release of the Federal Communications Commission, dated April 3, 

2006 ....................................................................................................................... 106

Article from Communications Daily submitted by Walter B. McCormick, Jr., 

President and Chief Executive Officer, United States Telecom Association ... 109

Letter to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee 

on the Judiciary, from Deborah J. Majoras, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission .................................................................................................................. 111

A Public Knowledge White Paper by John Windhausen, Jr., entitled ‘‘Good 

Fences Make Bad Broadband, Preserving an Open Internet through Net 

Neutrality’’ ............................................................................................................ 119

(1)

NETWORK NEUTRALITY: COMPETITION, INNOVATION, AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ACCESS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TASK FORCE ON TELECOM AND ANTITRUST, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Task Force met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Chris Cannon 

(Acting Chair of the Task Force) presiding. 

Mr. CANNON. The Committee will come to order. 

Just a note before we get started that we have a bill coming up 

on the—the Committee has a bill coming up on the floor at 2:45. 

We may have to recess this Committee. We’re just trying to work 

out—it is the rule of the Committee that we recess when the Committee has a bill on the floor of the House. We are trying to work 

that out so that we don’t inconvenience everyone with a 45-minute 

recess, and so we are going to get started here directly, and hopefully we will work that out so we don’t have to recess. 

In recent years, changing technology industry consolidation, and 

regulatory developments have fundamentally altered the telecommunications marketplace. With the changes in the industry, it 

is important that the pro-competitive goals that were the hallmarks of the 1996 act are maintained. Some have argued that 

these goals have gone unrealized, and it is essential that this Committee makes sure these goals do not slip away. 

President Ronald Reagan boldly predicted that, ‘‘The Goliath of 

totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the 

microchip.’’ He really was a visionary guy, you know? Substituting 

the word ‘‘Internet’’ for ‘‘microchip’’ is particularly appropriate 

given the unprecedented manner in which the Internet has revolutionized the manner in which we access and transmit a broad 

range of goods, services, and information. High-speed broadband 

Internet services have dramatically enhanced the ability of Americans to access the Internet, but the safeguards that we have allowed these services—that have allowed these services to flourish 

are under growing legal and regulatory assault. 

The Committee on the Judiciary has a central role in ensuring 

that market power of firms that provide access to the Internet is 

not used to discriminate against the content or services of competitors that drive innovation and consumer choice. Many credit the 

rapid rise of the Internet to the open architecture that defines it. 

Observers have noted that a unique feature of the Internet is the 

nearly unrestricted ability of anyone with service to connect to it, 

2

access and post information, download content, and consume goods 

and services without discrimination. The open architecture of this 

medium is central to our understanding of the Internet and a fundamental attribute of its success. 

Most Americans think that open and nondiscriminatory access to 

the Internet is something to be taken for granted, but it is not. 

Broadband providers exercise considerable control over how information and services are accessed over the Internet, and the inference that some of these providers may restrict access to the networks is of concern to all. While considerable effort has been made 

to confuse the definition of ‘‘net neutrality,’’ the term refers to the 

fundamental architecture of the Internet that allows for uninhibited, end-to-end communication. 

Former FCC Chairman Powell enunciated four Internet freedoms 

that provide a useful framework to understand this issue. These 

principles of Internet nondiscrimination are: 

First, freedom to access content. Consumers should have access 

to their choice of legal content. 

Second, freedom to use applications. Consumers should be able 

to run applications of their choice. 

Third, freedom to attach personal devices. Consumers should be 

permitted to attach any devices they choose to Internet portals. 

And, fourth, freedom to obtain service plan information. Consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans. 

Principles of net neutrality have been successfully articulated, 

but the mechanism to enforce them has not. The most notable example of Internet discrimination involved the Madison River Telephone Company obstruction of access to voice over Internet protocol, or VOIP, services provided by Vonage. In this case, the FCC 

investigated allegations that Madison River violated nondiscriminatory obligations contained in the Communications Act, but the 

redefinition of broadband as an information service dramatically 

reduces the authority of regulators to deter this kind of competitive 

misconduct. 

The House Committee on the Judiciary and the antitrust laws 

have played a critical role in fostering competition in the telecommunications industry. While the technological dynamics of the 

telecom industry have shifted the use of market power to deter 

competition and undermine consumer choice has not. The continued success of the Internet depends upon unfettered interconnection and the ability of consumers to connect and access online information, content, goods, and services in a nondiscriminatory 

manner. If consumers are going to continually migrate to the Internet and businesses are going to prosper because of the Internet, the 

House Committee on the Judiciary must be at the center of the debate defining competition—defending competition. 

Today’s hearing will examine whether the threats posed to net 

neutrality and whether the concerns that broadband providers 

have or intend to abuse their market power to violate these principles are substantive or speculative. The hearing will also examine 

whether broadband providers have an economic incentive to limit 

access to the Internet, the sufficiency of current legal and regulatory authority to preserve net neutrality, the competitive impact 

3

of proposals to provide Internet access on a tiered basis, recent 

legal and regulatory developments that affect broadband competition, and whether current legislative proposals being considered by 

Congress promote or undermine net neutrality. 

Today’s hearing marks the first in a series by the Committee’s 

Task Force on Telecom and Antitrust. Over the next several 

months, the task force will conduct a number of hearings to examine competitive aspects of the telecom industry and to consider legislation to ensure that Americans are provided with the innovation 

and consumer choice that unrestrained market competition preserves and promotes. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before today’s panel 

and yield to the Ranking Member for his remarks. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Cannon. I’m happy to welcome the witnesses, as you have, and begin a Judiciary Committee 

undertaking of the subject of net neutrality. 

I begin by noting that our colleagues Zoe Lofgren and Rick Boucher, as well as many other Members, have been working on this 

subject for quite a while, and I want to commend them and the 

Chairman of this Committee for making sure that our jurisdiction 

in this matter is put forward and that we can hold these kinds of 

hearings, because this is a very important subject, and it has to do 

with the issues that affect the state of competition in the telecommunications industry as applied to the Internet. And unless we 

have instances of a problem, it’s not clear to me that we ought to 

be moving forward. But here, on the subject of net neutrality, I 

think everyone agrees that it has to be addressed. And without 

going into the Committee on Commerce’s work in this area, it I 

think is to the credit of this Committee that we begin to examine 

the issues that are put forward in this matter. 

As far as I’m concerned, we have telecom companies that have 

indicated that they do not intend to let companies like Google and 

Yahoo! or next generations of Internet entrepreneurs go free or use 

the pipes without significant payments. We have some very interesting quotations from Mr. Seidenberg at Verizon and Mr. Ed 

Whitacre at AT&T that illustrate that things are changing, and 

what we are trying to do with this hearing is to help determine 

what kind of changes should be made and whether or not we 

should allow the FCC to make the decisions through sometimes 

rather general statements as to what the policy ought to be, whether content should be controlled by those who are delivering the 

services. 

It’s an important hearing. Network neutrality is something that 

should be very carefully considered as we move forward, and I 

think that the role of the Judiciary Committee is going to be very 

important, especially in the backdrop of a larger consideration of 

the questions involving commerce and communications. There are 

some large issues as we move toward the end of the 109th session 

of Congress that I’m not sure if we can handle all of this in the 

closing months. But there is no better and appropriate way to 

begin this than examining the question of net neutrality, and I’d 

like to have permission to put my statement in the record and welcome our witnesses and begin a very important hearing. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, who has 

worked together with me—and I’ve worked with him, I should say, 

at his feet learning on this issue for a very long period of time and 

look forward to working with him on this Committee. And without 

objection, his full remarks are entered in the record, and at this 

point, without objection, all Members’ opening statements may be 

included in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Let me introduce our witnesses—would anyone like to make an 

opening statement? 

[No response.] 

Mr. CANNON. Good. Thank you. 

Let’s go ahead and introduce the witnesses. The first witness is 

Paul Misener. Mr. Misener is the Vice President for Global Public 

Policy at Amazon.com. Prior to joining Amazon.com, Mr. Misener 

worked in both the Government as the senior legal advisor to FCC 

Commissioner Harold Furchgott-Roth and in private industry as a 

partner at Wiley, Rein & Fielding. He has the unique perspective 

of being both an engineer, graduating with a degree in electrical 

engineering and computer science from Princeton, and a lawyer, 

graduating from George Mason University. I thought that those 

were like incompatible. I gave up my law degree—or not the degree 

but my practice, largely because I love engineers. It’s nice to see 

someone who actually embodies both. 

Our second witness is Earl Comstock, the President and CEO of 

COMPTEL. Mr. Comstock previously served as the chief counsel 

and legislative director for Senator Ted Stevens, former Chairman 

of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 

and later served as the special counsel for telecommunications for 

the Senate Commerce Committee, where he negotiated and drafted 

key provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Mr. Comstock graduated with a political science degree from the University 

of California at Santa Barbara and earned a law degree from 

George Mason University. 

Our third witness is Walter McCormick, President and CEO of 

the United States Telecom Association. He has previously served as 

the general counsel for the Department of Transportation and then 

Under Secretary Andrew Card. Mr. McCormick also has extensive 

congressional experience with over 10 years serving in the Senate, 

holding numerous positions including general counsel, chief counsel, and staff director for the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. He obtained his undergraduate and 

law degree from the University of Missouri, studied international 

economics and political science at Georgetown University, and has 

completed the program for senior managers in government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. 

Our final witness is Timothy Wu, Professor of Law at Columbia 

University. He currently teaches copyright and trade and advance 

intellectual property and telecommunications at Columbia. Mr. Wu 

was formerly the Director of Corporate Marketing at Riverstone 

Networks, Inc., in Silicon Valley. He has written extensively on 

telecommunications and the issue of net neutrality and has been 

published in the Supreme Court Review as well as a number of 

Law Review journals, including those at Michigan, Virginia, and 

Harvard. Mr. Wu obtained his undergraduate degree from McGill 

5

University and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law 

School. 

It is the practice in this Committee to swear in all witnesses, so 

if you wouldn’t mind standing and repeating after me, raising your 

arm. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. CANNON. The record should indicate that all of the witnesses 

indicated in the affirmative. 

We will now proceed with witness opening statements. I think 

you all have probably testified here before, but we have a little system of lights. The first light will be green and that goes on for 4 

minutes. You have a yellow light, and when the light turns red, we 

won’t tap you down, but given the possibility that we may have to 

recess, we suggest—we would hope that you would keep it near 5 

minutes. 

Thank you and, Mr. Misener, would you please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL MISENER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY, AMAZON.COM 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. It is on. Thank you. Good 

afternoon, Chairman Cannon, Mr. Conyers, and Members of the 

task force. Amazon belongs to a coalition of companies that includes eBay, Google, IAC, Microsoft, and Yahoo! that is working 

closely with the growing assembly of well over 100 consumer 

groups, associations, and companies which share concerns about 

the topic of this hearing. I respectfully request that my entire written statement, which lists the organizations in this assembly, be 

including in the record. Thank you very much for inviting me to 

testify. 

Mr. Chairman, we are here because things have changed. Within 

the past few years, the phone and cable companies have acquired 

the technical means, market power, and regulatory permission to 

restrict consumers’ access to broadband Internet content, such as 

movies and music, and they’ve clearly announced their plans to do 

so. In short, the phone and cable companies will fundamentally 

alter the Internet unless Congress acts to stop them. And yet the 

response so far from Congress, the bill being considered in the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee, is wholly inadequate. 

Worse than failing to confront the threat, this bill would tie the 

hands of the expert agency. Surely, as it did a few years ago with 

the Tax Freedom Act, Congress can better thwart this clear and 

present danger to the Internet. 

Mr. Chairman, rather than read all or part of my written statement, I would like to use my allotted time to describe what will 

happen if Congress fails to reinstate essential consumer safeguards 

recently abandoned by the FCC. 

For the next 5 to 10 years, phone and cable companies will maintain their duopoly market power over consumer broadband Internet 

access. The phone and cable companies also will continue to invest 

and deploy broadband, as they have for many years under nondiscrimination rules. And they will continue to realize returns on 

their investments by being handsomely paid for access by consumers and content providers alike. Although the network operators will continue to promise that they won’t, quote, block access 

6

to websites, they will firm up their plans to degrade access to some 

websites as a consequence of giving priority, fast-lane access to others. 

The telcos also will start providing proprietary video service and 

will continue to seek accelerated franchise grants without build-out 

requirements, based in part on the existence of Internet video competition which, simultaneously, they are moving to quash. 

At some point, the phone and cable companies will present a simple ultimatum to major Internet content providers: Pay us for 

prioritization, or if you don’t pay, your content will be degraded relative to those who do pay. Similar deals may be struck based on 

political or religious viewpoints or other non-technical discriminatory factors. In this way, the network operators will extend their 

market power over access to market power over content. They will 

use their monopolies to monopolize. A bidding war will quickly 

ensue. The top-tier Internet content companies will bid up the price 

of prioritization on each of the half dozen or so major Internet access networks. Smaller companies will recognize that they have no 

hope of competing in this bidding war, and independent venture 

capital for new online businesses will dry up. 

The new way for an entrepreneur to take a business online will 

be to seek permission from the phone and cable companies. A flurry of antitrust actions will then be filed against the network operators, but even if the courts don’t find that the plaintiffs failed to 

state a claim, these actions will take far too long to be effective. 

Meanwhile, the foreign network operators, such as Deutsche 

Telekom, almost all of which are wholly or partially owned by a 

foreign government, will follow through on their already announced 

plans to use discrimination as a great way to make more money 

off the world-leading American Internet content companies. In effect, foreign network operators will restrict access of American 

Internet companies to foreign markets. 

Congress or the FCC will soon thereafter realize that it was a 

mistake to allow the network operators to control Internet content 

and will rush to pass remedial legislation. Unfortunately, it will be 

too late because the lost years of innovation will be forever lost, the 

network operators will have wastefully invested in equipment designed for discrimination instead of speed, and the foreign governments certainly won’t reverse themselves just because America reconsidered. 

So the result of Congress’ unwillingness to address this clear and 

present danger will be to leave American consumers with dramatically reduced content choice, to stall American online innovation, 

and to wound U.S. global Internet competitiveness. 

Mr. Chairman, this sorry tale is eminently avoidable. I urge you 

and your colleagues to recognize that, despite how much we wish 

it were otherwise, the market for broadband Internet access is not 

competitive and that the network operators, both domestic and foreign, fully intend to extent their market power over access to market power over content. I, therefore, urge that Congress act now to 

reinstate meaningful, enforceable, bright-line safeguards that preserve consumers’ longstanding freedom of Internet content choice. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify this afternoon, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

7

[The prepared statement of Mr. Misener follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL MISENER

Good morning, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Mr. Conyers, and Members of the Task 

Force. My name is Paul Misener. I am Amazon.com’s Vice President for Global Public Policy. Amazon belongs to a coalition that includes eBay, Google, IAC/

InterActiveCorp, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, that was formed to express our shared concerns about the topic of this hearing. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify 

on this important matter. I respectfully request that my entire written statement 

be included in the record. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, the phone and cable companies will fundamentally alter the Internet in America unless Congress acts to stop them. They have the market power, and 

regulatory permission to restrict American consumers’ access to broadband Internet 

content, including music and movies, and have announced their plans to do so. 

Amazon.com is an Internet-based retailer and retail platform with over fifty million customers worldwide. We merely want to ensure that our customers retain their 

longstanding freedom to access the broadband Internet content of their choice, including that content available from Amazon.com. Currently, consumers pay network 

operators for Internet access, and have the freedom to select lawful content from 

providers like Amazon, who pay network operators millions of dollars a year for 

Internet access. 

In essence, we fear circumstances in which broadband network operators with 

market power are permitted—based on payments, political or religious viewpoints, 

or any other non-technical discriminatory factors—to prefer some content and thereby restrict consumer access to other content. 

As already noted, many large Internet content companies including Amazon.com, 

eBay, Google, IAC/InterActiveCorp, Microsoft, and Yahoo! are very concerned about 

network operators’ ability and plans to restrict content choice. Earlier this month, 

the chief executive officers of these companies, Jeff Bezos, Meg Whitman, Eric 

Schmidt, Barry Diller, Steve Ballmer, and Terry Semel, wrote the Honorable Joe 

Barton, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to say that

Until FCC decisions made last summer, consumers’ ability to choose the content 

and services they want via their broadband connections was assured by regulatory safeguards. Innovators likewise have been able to use their ingenuity and 

knowledge of the marketplace to develop new and better online offerings. This 

‘‘innovation without permission’’ has fueled phenomenal economic growth, productivity gains, and global leadership for our nation’s high tech companies.

These six CEOs then urged that, in order ‘‘[t]o preserve this environment,’’ a bill 

should be passed ‘‘that directly addresses broadband network operators’ ability to 

manipulate what consumers will see and do online. It is equally important to pass 

a bill that fleshes out these consumer freedoms via rules of the road that are both 

meaningful and readily enforceable.’’ Lastly, the CEOs expressed their desire to 

work for legislation ‘‘to protect millions of Americans’ legitimate expectations in an 

open Internet, as well as the innovation and competitiveness that it creates.’’

Our companies believe that Congress must act to preserve longstanding consumer 

freedoms. The telco and cable operators must not be allowed to extend their market 

power over broadband Internet access to market power over broadband Internet content. 

This is not just a ‘‘big Internet company’’ issue, however. Ultimately, this is a consumer and much broader industry issue, and a coalition of well over 100 organizations have joined together to support legislative safeguards to preserve the openness 

of the Internet. These organizations include the AARP, Acopia Networks, Adaptive 

Marketing LLC, Adobe, Advancedmultimedia.com, Aegon Direct Marketing Services, 

Airespring, Amazon.com, American Association of Libraries, AnalogZone, 

AngleBeds.com, Ask.com, Association of Research Libraries, Awow Communications, 

Bandwidth.com, Bloglines, Borsetti & Co., BT Americas Inc., Business Software Alliance, CALTEL, Cendant, Chemistry.com, CinemaNow, Circumedia LLC, CitySearch, 

CommPartners Holding Company, COMPTEL, Comunicano, Inc., Consumer Electronics Association, Consumer Federation of America, Corliant, Cornerstone Brands, 

Inc., Dagdamor Media, Dave Pettito Direct, DiMA, Domania, Downstream, 

Dreamsleep.com, Dresses.com, EarthLink, eBay, eBrands Commerce Group, Economics & Technology, Inc., Educause, Elaine P. Dine, Electronic Retailing Association, Entertainment Publications, Evite.com, Excite, Expedia, Free Press, Free 

World Dialup, GetSmart, Gifts.com, Google, GotVoice, Inc., Graceline Canada, HawVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
8

thorne Direct, Home Shopping Network, Hotels.com, Hotwire, HSE24, IAC/

InterActiveCorp, Iceland Health Inc., iFreedom Communications, iNest, InPulse Response, INS, Interactive Travel Services Association, InterMetro, Internet2, Interval 

International, Intervox.com, IntraISP, Invens Capital, Isen.com, LLC, IVR Technologies, iWon, J. Arnold & Associates, JohnnyZip, Lafayette Group, Inc., Law Offices of James Tobin, LendingTree, Lingo, Inc., Listyourself.net, Livemercial, 

Match.com, McFadden Associates, MCM Telecom, Media Access Project, Media Partners Worldwide, Mercury Media, Merrick Group, Microcom, Microsoft, Miller & Van 

Eaton, National Retail Federation, Nationalblinds.com, NetCoalition, Objectworld, 

Pac-West, PointOne, PRC, Primus Telecommunications, Product Partners LLC, Public Knowledge, Pulver.com, RealEstate.com, ReserveAmerica, Rifftone.com, S & B 

Technical Products, Savatar, Savvier, ServiceMagic, Shelcomm, Shoebuy.com, 

Skype, Sling Media, Sling Media Inc., SOHOlutions, Sonus Capital Management, 

Sony Electronics Inc., SunRocket, Symercy Financial Corp., Techviser, Telekom Austria, Telephia, TELLO, Ticketmaster, Tier1Research, TiVO, TNS, Tonystickets.com, 

Tranqulitymattress.com, Travelocity, udate.com, VI Technologies, Vivox, WCW Networks, and Yahoo! 

I hope that all of these entities’ views and, most importantly to Amazon.com, the 

interests of our customers, will be thoroughly considered. 

Moreover, this is not merely a dispute between American network operators on 

one hand, and American consumers and content providers on the other. Rather, it 

is the first and precedent-setting battle in a worldwide conflict. Recent news reports 

confirm that foreign network operators such as Deutsche Telekom and Telecom 

Italia also are interested in extending their market power over their networks to 

market power over content. Thus, if U.S. policymakers were to allow American network operators to extract oligopoly rents from American content providers, our policymakers would be simultaneously setting a precedent for allowing foreign operators to exercise the same leverage over world-leading American Internet content 

companies and their customers. 

In my time this afternoon, I will describe the market power of network operators 

and the details of how they intend to extend that market power to limit consumer 

choice of content, such as movies, television, and music. I then will describe the 

need for Congress to require adoption of regulations to confront this clear and 

present danger; how failure to act will set a dangerous international precedent that 

will harm American competitiveness overseas; and how legislation that would grant 

national video franchising relief should not be enacted without such provisions. 

Lastly, I will propose modest safeguards to preserve Americans’ longstanding freedom of Internet content choice. 

II. NETWORK OPERATORS HAVE MARKET POWER: CONSUMERS HAVE LITTLE OR NO

CHOICE OF BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS

Mr. Chairman, as much as we wish it were otherwise, consumers have little or 

no real choice of broadband Internet access. For the foreseeable future, nearly all 

Americans will have two or fewer providers available: the phone company, the cable 

company, or both. And, unfortunately, consumers will continue to face discouragingly high costs of switching between them; equipment swaps, inside wiring 

changes, technician visits, long term contracts, and the bundling of multiple services 

all contribute to these costs. 

Despite the common misconception intentionally perpetuated by the network operators, the Internet did not grow up in an unregulated environment; its growth and 

success were due in large measure to the longstanding rules that governed its infrastructure until last year’s FCC decision. Although many of the rules were outdated 

and worthy of deregulation, the Commission erred by completely abandoning nondiscrimination requirements before the market became competitive. 

The Commission’s own semi-annually reported data on the competitive availability of broadband access are fundamentally misleading. These data, which purport to show multiple broadband service providers in many areas of the country, 

completely obscure the realities faced by individual consumers. Unfortunately, however, these data also were the basis for the Commission’s recent actions. 

In the first place, the data count as high-speed broadband any services that deliver as little as 200 kbps in one direction. Although this may have been a reasonable definition of broadband a decade ago, it is preposterously slow today, incapable 

of delivering even typical TV quality video, let alone HDTV, and is but one five-hundredth the speed being provided to millions of consumers in Korea and elsewhere. 

Second, the geographic areas analyzed are zip codes, not individual neighborhoods 

or households. So while there may be three or four true broadband network operators (for example, two telcos and two cable companies) serving small separate areas 

9

in a zip code, no one consumer may have access to more than two of them (one telco 

and one cable company). 

The result of these misleading FCC data is that the amount of broadband consumer choice is wildly overstated, particularly when the aforementioned high 

switching costs are considered. If it really were easy for Americans to switch among 

five, six, or more true broadband Internet access providers, the market would be 

competitive and legislated consumer safeguards would not be necessary. 

Unfortunately, what exists for the vast majority of Americans is, at best, a duopoly of the local phone and cable companies. Widespread deployment of alternative 

broadband technologies capable of high quality video remains a distant hope and, 

with yet another mega-merger in the works (this time AT&T and BellSouth), the 

promise of inter-regional local phone company competition is all but dead. In such 

oligopolistic conditions, consumers are left with fewer services, higher prices, or 

both. 

The FCC’s most recent semi-annual broadband deployment data, released earlier 

this month, verify this bleak assessment. Perhaps the most salient fact revealed in 

the data is that, of the 34.3 million advanced services broadband lines serving primarily residential end users, only one half of one percent use other than telco or 

cable technology. Given that telco-telco and cable-cable overbuilds are so very rare, 

this fact confirms that nearly all American consumers are stuck with the telco-cable 

duopoly. 

To be clear, we don’t begrudge the phone and cable companies their current market power over broadband Internet access networks. Despite the longstanding desires and noble aspirations of policy makers, America is stuck with this super-concentrated market for the foreseeable future. 

Moreover, although we oppose the collection of oligopoly rents, we certainly don’t 

seek to deny network operators a healthy return on their investments. But there 

are two obvious considerations: what are their investments and are they getting a 

return? While it is true that there are new investments being made (well before any 

discriminatory pricing regime has been established), even the operators like to remind regulators that they are, in Verizon’s words, potential video service providers 

‘‘who already have access to the rights-of-way’’ around the country. But, of course, 

they did not obtain these incredibly valuable rights-of-way on the competitive market but, rather, by government grant to a monopoly service provider. In sum, much 

of their ‘‘investment’’ was either given to them or explicitly protected from competition by the government. 

Just as importantly, content providers currently pay network operators for the 

amount of connection capacity they use, and network operators can charge consumers different prices depending upon how much bandwidth they use. This sort 

of connectivity ‘‘tiering’’ makes perfect sense. And, of course, network operators will 

charge consumers for the provision of any ancillary services, such as affiliated video 

content. 

Perhaps the best way to gauge whether they believe their investments without 

discrimination are providing an acceptable return is to note that the FCC data indicate that telco and cable broadband services are being deployed and taken by consumers at a rapid pace. Given the network operators’ claims (which I believe) that 

they are not currently engaged in much, if any, content discrimination, this is a 

clear indication that network operators need not discriminate to deploy broadband 

in America. 

We also welcome broadband network operators’ innovations within the network. 

With Moore’s Law at work, network operators ought to be able to deploy innovative 

new technologies and services that, with increasing efficiency, provide benefits to operators and users alike. And we certainly don’t oppose network operators’ entry into 

competing businesses so long as they are not allowed to leverage their market power 

over broadband Internet access to favor these ancillary endeavors. 

What we seek is more modest, yet far more important: We ask that Congress keep 

the telco and cable operators from taking their market power over broadband Internet access and extending it to market power over broadband Internet content. 

III. UNLESS CONGRESS ACTS SOON, NETWORK OPERATORS WILL USE THEIR MARKET

POWER OVER ACCESS TO RESTRICT CONSUMER CHOICE OF BROADBAND INTERNET

CONTENT

Mr. Chairman, unless Congress acts soon, American consumers will receive artificially restricted choice of broadband Internet content. Leveraging their market 

power, phone and cable companies plan to restrict American consumers’ access to 

such content based in large part on lucrative deals they intend to cut with third 

parties. And it will be just as easy for the operators to favor content based on politVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
10

ical or religious viewpoints or other non-technical discriminatory criteria. By constraining consumer access to content providers, the network operators also would 

create an artificial ‘‘channel scarcity’’—essentially a bandwidth cartel—where none 

previously existed. 

After years of administrative proceedings and litigation, last year the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access by wireline service providers, both telco and cable. 

Although the Commission simultaneously adopted a policy statement that confirms 

the agency’s statutory authority and possible intentions to act, the statement fails 

to address some likely discriminatory behaviors and, in any case, is explicitly unenforceable. So, with the exception of weak merger conditions that apply the FCC’s 

equally weak policy statement to a few network operators, and expire for no apparent reason in 18 months (the market certainly won’t be competitive by then), telcos 

and cable companies may restrict consumer access to content at will. Because American consumers’ access to Internet content is in jeopardy, Congress needs to act. 

Just as it is clear that the network operators have the market power to restrict 

consumers’ choice of broadband Internet content, it has become equally clear that 

they fully intend to do so. Not only have the telcos and cable companies stridently 

and steadfastly opposed any meaningful network neutrality rules, their most senior 

executives have, over the past six months (noticeably, beginning only after the 

FCC’s final reclassification actions), issued scary yet refreshingly honest statements 

that reveal their plans for restricting consumer access to content. Simply put, the 

network operators are planning to restrict consumer choice of broadband Internet 

content based on deals they intend to strike with content providers and, perhaps, 

editorial viewpoints or other non-technical discriminatory criteria. This is precisely 

the opposite of ‘‘a la carte’’ pricing being sought from current, vertically integrated 

video service providers. Indeed, rather than enhancing consumer choice and flexibility, the network operators are moving retrograde to constrain such choice and 

flexibility and create an artificial scarcity of content outlets. 

Although the network operators have been somewhat less clear on exactly how

they intend to limit consumer access, their FCC filings and public statements reveal 

that they plan to do so in three key ways. But before I describe these, please allow 

me to summarize their technology plans. There are many differences among the 

technologies the duopoly network operators intend to use (hybrid fiber-coax by the 

cable operators and either fiber-to-the-home or fiber-to-the-node plus DSL over copper twisted pair by the telco operators), but all three technologies have been designed to operate the same way in practice, with two downstream components: a 

very high capacity (‘‘fast lane’’) cable-like private network component, and a much 

lower capacity (‘‘slow lane’’) downstream broadband Internet access component. The 

fast lane will be operated as a closed network, while the slow lane will be more (but 

not entirely) open. 

A. Specific Network Operator Plans 

The network operators apparently plan to restrict consumer choice of broadband 

Internet content in three essential ways: by providing (1) a closed fast lane and an 

open slow lane; (2) paid ‘police escort’ within the slow lane; and (3) preferential 

‘‘local on-ramps’’ into the slow lane. 

1. Closed Fast Lane and Open Slow Lane. First, as noted before, each network 

operator has or is constructing a fast lane for their affiliated broadband content provided by a sister company and a slow lane for broadband Internet content provided 

by others. The fast lane they reserve for themselves is a closed, private network. 

This has always been the case for cable operators and, even for the telco operators 

deploying broadband, make no mistake: the overall broadband pipes they’re deploying are mostly just another version of cable TV, not broadband Internet. Consumers 

should recognize that despite the nearly ubiquitous and puffy advertising, it’s not 

about ‘‘your world, delivered,’’ it’s mostly about their world. 

2. Paid Police Escort within the Slow Lane. Second, the network operators intend 

to offer Internet content providers paid prioritization (essentially a paid ‘‘police escort’’) in the slow lane. Their plan is that, as content enters the operators’ slow lanes 

from an Internet or other network access point, the speed with which this content 

transits their network will be determined, in part, based on whether the content 

owner paid for prioritization. The terms of art the network operators use to describe 

this prioritization include ‘‘quality of service’’ and ‘‘tiering.’’ Each term is intentionally confusing. I am not suggesting that certain types of services be denied 

prioritization, just like certain kinds of road traffic, like emergency services, deserve 

police escort. But such police escort should not be made available for a fee; otherwise those unable to pay the fee will always be stuck in traffic. Put another way, 

to prioritize some traffic is to degrade other traffic. It’s a zero-sum game at any bottleneck. This fact is intentionally obscured by network operators, who incorrectly 

11

claim that they will not degrade anyone’s content. Neutral prioritization (for example, network management whereby all live video streams receive priority above all 

text files) would be perfectly acceptable. But for an operator to sell priority to the 

highest bidder, the degradation of service to content providers who can’t or don’t pay 

would be anticompetitive. Fortunately, it also is predictable and, with modest legal 

safeguards, avoidable. 

As should be obvious, small businesses will have a very hard time innovating if 

they need to pay for ‘police escort’ prioritization to compete. When some companies 

like mine have noted this previously, some of the network operators respond with 

something to the effect of ‘‘beware when big companies are looking out for the interests of little ones.’’ That response seeks to change the subject and obscure three key 

points. First, it doesn’t change the underlying fact that small entrepreneurs—facing 

a possible bidding war among big companies—are going to be hurt unless Congress 

does something now. Second, many of the big companies noting this imminent throttle on small company innovation were, indeed, innovative small companies only just 

a few years ago. And, third, on behalf of our customers, we want to ensure that our 

innovations—essentially new businesses operating in start-up mode by our employees—are not hindered in the same way. We merely want, as Internet pioneer Vint 

Cerf so clearly puts it, ‘‘to innovate without permission’’ of the network operators. 

3. Preferential Local On-Ramps into the Slow Lane. Lastly, the network operators 

intend to offer downstream content injection (essentially ‘‘local on-ramps’’ to the 

broadband slow lane) to content providers who are willing to pay. This would enable 

content to be delivered from geographic locations closer to consumers and provide 

better user experiences. Such local on-ramps already are provided in a competitive 

access market by companies such as Akamai, which has servers distributed 

throughout the United States so that content can be delivered quickly to consumers, 

rather than having to traverse great distances on the Internet. Although content 

providers have no expectation that such local on-ramps must be provided for free, 

network operators must not offer local on-ramps on discriminatory terms. 

B. Network Operator Claims 

So how do the network operators discuss these plans? They obfuscate. For example, most network operators say they won’t, quote, ‘‘block’’ websites. This relatively 

new concession is neither noble nor comforting and, in fact, is quite misleading. 

While they may not actually block access to a particular website, they easily could 

make that site’s content unusable, either by overly constraining capacity (making 

the slow lane too slow); by providing prioritization only to those willing and able 

to pay (the paid ‘‘police escorts’’ that make everyone else wait); or by providing 

downstream injection (the local on-ramps) only on unreasonable or discriminatory 

terms. So it’s a matter of semantics: they may never block content, but still could 

make it unusable. 

Wireless network operators and their representatives are seeking exemption from 

any non-discrimination requirement enacted, but it is difficult to see on what basis 

such an exemption would be justified. Technology neutrality dictates equal treatment of copper, glass, and the ether. Consumers need not, and should not, have 

their access via such various means treated differently by regulation, unless there 

is some difference among them that legitimizes disparate treatment. The possible 

differences for wireless are bandwidth, mobility, ‘‘closed network,’’ and competition. 

If the concern is bandwidth or mobility, wireless providers can rest assured that 

a non-discrimination requirement would neither require certain levels of bandwidth 

or performance but, rather, that all sources of technically-similar Internet content 

be treated equally. And if a wireless carrier wants to offer a purely private network, 

without Internet access, then non-discrimination rules would not apply. 

It is important to recognize that, as competitive as the mobile wireless market 

may appear on the surface, it would not exist on this issue because the competing 

wireless providers are almost all owned by the uncompetitive telcos who oppose nondiscrimination rules. Although Sprint/NexTel is independent, T-Mobile is owned by 

Deutsche Telekom (which has announced its intention to discriminate), Cingular is 

owned by AT&T and BellSouth, and Verizon Wireless is owned by Verizon. On the 

issue of Internet content non-discrimination, therefore, policymakers cannot expect 

the wireless market to behave competitively. 

Other network operators say, dismissively, that this is a ‘‘solution in search of a 

problem,’’ or that policymakers should wait for a problem to arise before acting. This 

wait-and-see approach was endorsed by the FCC last year. But what further proof 

is needed? The time to act is now. To ignore the network operators’ market power, 

their strident and steadfast opposition to meaningful safeguards, their boldly announced intentions, and their increasingly clear specific plans, is truly to turn a 

blind eye to a clear and present danger to consumers. 

12

This situation is eerily similar to that facing Congress a few years ago with respect to Internet access taxes. Congress correctly foresaw the future problem of 

state and local governments imposing burdensome taxes on Internet access and 

moved peremptorily to ban such taxes by enacting then extending the Internet Tax 

Freedom Act. Today, the functional equivalents of the state and local tax collectors 

are the oligopolistic telco and cable network operators, and Congress should likewise 

recognize and peremptorily thwart the threat they pose to the Internet. 

IV. FAILURE TO PROTECT AMERICAN CONSUMERS ALSO WILL ENABLE 

FOREIGN NETWORK OPERATORS’ ANNOUNCED PLANS TO RESTRICT 

AMERICAN CONTENT COMPANIES’ ACCESS TO OVERSEAS MARKETS 

To make matters worse, foreign broadband Internet access network operators 

have plans to restrict world-leading American content companies’ access to overseas 

consumers. Deutsche Telekom and Telecom Italia have already announced their 

plans. Earlier this year, for example, Kai-Uwe Ricke, the CEO of Deutsche Telekom 

said that ‘‘the Googles, Yahoos, eBays and Amazons’’ ‘‘need infrastructure’’; that ‘‘[i]t 

cannot be that infrastructure providers like [Deutsche] Telekom continue to invest, 

while others profit from it’’; and that ‘‘Web companies that use infrastructures [sic] 

for their business should also do their part.’’ But, of course, Amazon.com and others 

already do their part by paying for Internet connections. What Mr. Ricke actually 

wants, of course, is exactly what our domestic network operators want: to use market power to charge consumers once and American content providers twice, all for 

the same thing. 

American policymakers must consider the effects of our domestic regulatory actions on our global competitiveness. American content companies like Amazon.com 

are world leaders today, in part because our access to consumers in other markets 

has not been impeded. If foreign network operators, almost all of which face no competition and are fully or partly owned by foreign governments, with obvious incentives to favor non-American content companies, are allowed to extract discriminatory rents from American content companies, our competitiveness both as an industry and a nation will suffer. Put another way, even if it were sound policy for Congress to allow American network operators to extract oligopoly rents from American 

content companies, it could not be sound policy to set the precedent for foreign network operators to extort payments from world-leading American content companies. 

How could our trade representatives challenge such actions abroad if we permit 

them here at home? Clearly, we must not lay the groundwork for every network operator around the globe to extort payments from American Internet companies. The 

only way we can hope to prevent this outcome is to hold the line domestically: we 

must not allow consumer choice of content to be artificially restricted by network 

operators with market power. 

V. ANY LEGISLATION GRANTING VIDEO FRANCHISING RELIEF MUST ALSO 

AFFIRMATIVELY PRESERVE CONSUMER FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF 

INTERNET CONTENT 

Mr. Chairman, the preservation of American consumers’ longstanding freedom of 

choice of Internet content should be addressed in the context of national video franchising relief. The reason for granting such relief is, of course, the introduction of 

additional video competition for consumers, so it would be counterproductive to facilitate the delivery of content of one additional competitor (the phone company), 

while limiting the availability of thousands of other competitors via the Internet. 

Moreover, in support of their opposition to requirements for system build-out and 

service to rural areas, the telcos recently have repeatedly cited the competition from 

Internet content providers (‘‘Internet streaming video’’ and ‘‘Internet-downloaded 

video,’’ in AT&T’s words). As Verizon reported to the Commission in opposition to 

video build-out requirements, there is ‘‘significant competition in access to video programming through myriad means, including internet and satellite sources. . . .’’ 

BellSouth went so far as to tell the FCC that Internet content competition would 

diminish unless telcos were given video franchising relief: ‘‘[i]f LFAs [local franchising authorities] are permitted to delay or prevent broadband providers from also 

[in addition to cable] offering video service, then competition will be greatly (and 

probably permanently) impeded. This is particularly true given the plethora of new 

[Internet-based] video offerings that require robust broadband networks.’’

So the network operators have the temerity to cite the presence of competitive 

Internet-based video programming as justification for preempting local government 

rules and dodging reasonable build-out obligations, all while planning to quash that 

competition by restricting consumer access to Internet content. 

13

In the interests of competition and consumer choice, therefore, video franchising 

relief must not be granted without meaningful broadband Internet content safeguards; otherwise, consumers will receive less, not more, choice of content. 

These safeguards must keep the network operators from cutting ‘‘paid police escort’’ deals that would adversely affect the traffic of other content providers who 

can’t or don’t pay. And they also should keep the operators from insisting upon unreasonable or discriminatory terms for leasing ‘‘local on-ramps.’’ In short, the most 

likely and dangerous anti-consumer discriminatory behaviors of broadband network 

operators must be thwarted in advance by legislation and regulation. 

Mr. Chairman, your Committee’s interest in this matter is greatly appreciated. 

We seek bright line rules that would avoid unnecessarily lengthy litigation, especially given how easily foreseen—even forthrightly announced—the network operators’ anticompetitive actions are. As I noted in testimony before Congress almost 

three years ago, and as the FCC recognized in its final broadband reclassification 

order last August, that agency does not need new authority to act in this area. Congress needs either to direct agency action under current authority, or to enact another mechanism for protecting American consumers and competition. 

VI. CONGRESS SHOULD REINSTATE LONGSTANDING REGULATORY SAFEGUARDS TO PRESERVE CONSUMER FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF INTERNET CONTENT 

Mr. Chairman, we respectfully ask that Congress enact modest but effective safeguards to reinstate limited protections that the FCC recently abandoned, and thereby preserve American consumers’ longstanding freedom of choice of Internet content. Without much effort, these regulatory safeguards can be narrowly drawn so 

that operators’ private networks are not invaded and so that operators are appropriately compensated for the services they provide. 

Two essential consumer safeguards we seek can be summarized as follows:

(1) Content transiting an operator’s broadband Internet access network may be 

prioritized only on the basis of the type of content and the level of bandwidth purchased by the consumer, not ownership, source, or affiliation of 

the content. (That is, for traffic within the broadband network’s Internet access lane, ‘‘police escort’’ may be provided only based on the technical nature 

of the traffic or whether the consumer has a paid more for a somewhat higher speed limit.)

(2) The terms for local content injection must be reasonable and non-discriminatory; network operators must not be allowed to give preferential deals to 

affiliated or certain other content providers. (That is, ‘‘local on-ramps’’ into 

the Internet access lane need not be free, but the road owner must not 

charge unreasonable or discriminatory rates to favor their own or only some 

others’ traffic.)

Note that we are not seeking to have broadband Internet access reclassified as 

common carriage. To the contrary, we think that with modest safeguards, appropriately drafted and clarified, and with mandatory and meaningful agency enforcement, American consumers could be confident that their longstanding choice of lawful Internet content will not be limited by network operators. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the phone and cable companies will fundamentally 

alter the Internet in America unless Congress acts to stop them. They have the market power, technical means, and regulatory permission to restrict American consumers’ access to broadband Internet content, and they’ve announced plans to do 

so. 

For the foreseeable future, American consumers will have little or no real choice 

of broadband Internet access. And—unless Congress acts soon to reinstate modest 

and longstanding consumer safeguards—consumer freedom to choose broadband 

Internet content will be artificially limited. I urge you and your colleagues to recognize that, despite how we wish it were otherwise, the market for broadband Internet 

access is not competitive and that the network operators—both domestic and foreign—fully intend to extend their market power to restrict consumer choice of content by discriminatorily constraining consumer access to American content companies. I also urge that, simultaneous to any grant of video franchising relief, Congress enact safeguards to preserve American consumers’ longstanding freedom of 

Internet content choice. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

14

ATTACHMENT


PM.eps
15

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Misener, for a very compelling 

statement. We appreciate that. 

Mr. Comstock? 

TESTIMONY OF EARL W. COMSTOCK, PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMPTEL 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. It’s a pleasure to be here. I’m Earl Comstock, the President and CEO of COMPTEL. We represent a diverse mix of competitive providers. We have everything from cable overbuilders to 

wireless companies to Internet companies. We basically represent 

the entire spectrum of application and network operators that seek 

to serve consumers. 

I would like to build a little bit on what Mr. Misener just said. 

I think, you know, he is speaking from an Internet content company side, and now we’re looking at the folks that are primarily in 

my organization, actually seek to provide competing transmission 

services. Many of them do have their own facilities, and the keys 

that are here and the reason why Congress needs to act is that the 

reality of the situation today is in this United States we have two 

facility-based operators that reach essentially all homes and one facility-based operator that reaches essentially all businesses. And 

that has not changed. Both of those operators built their networks 

in a protected environment. They had at least a decade, if not several decades, in which to build out their facilities with the guarantee that if they built those facilities, they would get the customers. And here I’m talking about not only the incumbent phone 

companies, but the incumbent cable companies as well. 

And I think it’s important for the Committee to recognize that 

the network dynamics lead to inevitable discriminatory practices if 

Congress sets the law the wrong way. Right now today, you have 

the possibility that residential consumers might actually enjoy two 

facilities-based options while most businesses enjoy only one. Without some kind of rules that provide access to that infrastructure 

that was built across public rights-of-way and using public spectrum, we will not have competition that allows the content providers that Mr. Misener was speaking about, the innovators of all 

the innovative services and applications that everyone seeks to get 

access to today, we won’t have any competition in the provision of 

the vital transmission. That’s the key ingredient that everyone 

needs, the essential facility, in antitrust terms, that has to be 

available. And it’s something that can’t easily be duplicated. It took 

a lot of time and a lot of money to build out infrastructure throughout the United States. The thought that a competitor in the face 

of an entrenched incumbent would be able to not only gain the capital but then construct facilities—which, again, can’t magically appear everywhere at once but have to be built out over time. In the 

face of someone who has an entrenched revenue stream and an entrenched network and the very customers that competitor is seeking to serve, that’s an incredible barrier to entry unless there are 

some rules that make it possible for you to do that. 

Now, this Committee doesn’t necessarily set the common carrier 

rules, but you do have oversight over the antitrust rules. And I’d 

point out the parallels here between what’s happening now and 

16

we’re seeing the re-establishment of the very kind of monopoly that 

led the Reagan administration Antitrust Division to break up 

AT&T. It was an effort that actually started 10 years before in the 

Nixon and Ford administrations and was carried through to the 

Reagan administration, and thankfully they followed through it. 

And what that case illustrated—the divestiture from AT&T illustrated was the incredible loss to this country, the lost opportunity 

that came about from having that kind of monopoly control of a 

network. It wasn’t until after the divestiture that we saw all the 

benefits, the innovation of the Internet, wireless companies, all 

kinds of new broadband services, none of which the incumbent 

would have employed or deployed because it would have threatened 

their revenue stream. 

And the same is true of cable operators. Cable modem service 

came about largely because of an opportunity that Congress provided in the 1996 act, where the cable industry believed that the 

phone companies were going to come into their market immediately, so they sought to respond to that potential competition by 

offering Internet access service. 

Now they’re in a situation where, gee, if I just continue to do 

what I’m doing, maybe the Bell Company gets in and offers video, 

but I’d much rather have a cozy duopoly than I would see competition. So what you’re seeing is an effort to get the cable rules applied to everybody, and those rules tie transmission and content, 

and that’s what’s so dangerous to the United States. If you allow 

that essential facility, the transmission, to be tied together with 

the content you will create the very gatekeepers that we broke up 

the AT&T monopoly to prevent. 

So I hope that you’ll look at enforcing some antitrust provisions, 

and I think antitrust is a possible remedy. But to do that, you really need to spell out some very clear violations, because I think as 

Mr. Misener said, the problem for most start-up companies is it’s 

a matter of time. If they don’t know up front that there’s going to 

be some relief from the kind of anticompetitive abuses, the exclusionary practices that network operators traditionally will engage 

in, then they’ve got no opportunity to get in the market in the first 

place. 

So it’s the opportunity foregone, the opportunity lost, that really 

is at issue here, and it is going to take some rules to make the 

Internet work. The Internet grew up on common carriage, and if 

we’re not going to have common carriage, we need a stronger antitrust remedy to solve that problem. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Comstock follows:]

17

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EARL W. COMSTOCK


EWC0001.eps
18


EWC0002.eps
19


EWC0003.eps
20


EWC0004.eps
21


EWC0005.eps
22


EWC0006.eps
23


EWC0007.eps
24


EWC0008.eps
25


EWC0009.eps
26


EWC0010.eps
27


EWC0011.eps
28


EWC0012.eps
29


EWC0013.eps
30


EWC0014.eps
31


EWC0015.eps
32


EWC0016.eps
33


EWC0017.eps
34


EWC0018.eps
35


EWC0019.eps
36


EWC0020.eps
37


EWC0021.eps
38


EWC0022.eps
39


EWC0023.eps
40


EWC0024.eps
41


EWC0025.eps
42


EWC0026.eps
43


EWC0027.eps
44


EWC0028.eps
45


EWC0029.eps
46


EWC0030.eps
47

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I appreciate that. That was also very 

insightful. 

And now for a slightly different perspective, I believe, Mr. 

McCormick? 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER B. McCORMICK, JR., PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cannon, 

Congressman Conyers, Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to be here today and to appear before this task 

force to discuss net neutrality. 

Mr. CANNON. You know, I think that box will slide closer to you, 

if you’d like. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Is that better? Okay. 

As you know, our association represents about 1,200 innovative 

companies that range from the smallest rural telecoms in the Nation to some of the largest corporations in the United States economy. 

What unites us is that we have a 100-year tradition of connecting people to each other over networks. We are 100 percent 

committed to this tradition as we invest billions of dollars building 

out our new, next-generation broadband networks that are capable 

of meeting America’s rapidly increasing ‘‘need for speed.’’

Today, I make the same commitment to you that our companies 

have made to their customers: We will not block, impair, or degrade content, applications, or services. 

If you can go there today on the Internet, you’ll be able to go 

there tomorrow. The functionality that you have today on the 

Internet, you will have tomorrow. 

For more than a century, our businesses have connected customers with those whom they choose to connect with. If a customer 

wants to call Sears, we don’t connect them to Macy’s. 

And the FCC has made it abundantly clear that it will move 

swiftly to protect consumers’ right to be in control of their Internet 

experience. 

But more fundamentally, consumers’ Internet experience is today 

unimpeded—in the absence of virtually any regulation of the Internet—because there exists a powerful consumer mandate for Internet freedom. 

In a new communications era defined by multiple choices—numerous communications pathways—consumers simply will not continue to purchase Internet service from a provider that seeks to 

block or restrict their Internet access. 

When consumers have choices in the marketplace, consumers 

have control. There is vigorous competition between DSL, cable 

modem, wireless, satellite, and other Internet access providers. In 

some areas free Wi-Fi access is available. In others, access over 

powerlines is available. This results in numerous benefits to consumers, including DSL prices as low as $12.99 a month. These benefits, of course, contribute to the FCC’s recent announcement of a 

60-percent year-over-year increase in U.S. broadband subscriptions, 

which is, of course, good news for our Nation’s economy and global 

competitiveness. 

48

But continued progress, continued technology advancements, continued expansion of consumer communications and entertainment 

choices, rests on continued investment in these next-generation 

networks. 

Mr. Chairman, the Internet exists today on networks. That is, in 

fact, what the Internet is—networks connecting with networks. 

Have network operators sought to control or restrict the Internet? 

No. Our companies have invested and grown and sought to increase the scale and the scope of the Internet. And we have sought 

public policy that encourages increased investment in networks 

that will make the Internet even more robust tomorrow than it is 

today. 

All sides of the network neutrality debate agree that what will 

be required in the future is more investment in networks. Indeed, 

Internet traffic is multiplying. Network traffic is now growing 

about 100 percent annually. Further acceleration is expected soon. 

Cisco CEO John Chambers predicts that broadband video and 

other bandwidth-intensive applications will drive a four-fold to sixfold increase in network traffic over the next decade. 

The answer is investment, not legislation that would discourage 

it. 

Congress has an important role in promoting competition. It 

should facilitate investment in next-generation broadband, investment from across today’s competitive landscape, along the lines of 

the legislation that’s now being developed by the Energy and Commerce Committee. We appreciate the vigilance of this task force, 

and we look forward to our continued work together. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCormick follows:]

49

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR.


WBM0001.eps
50


WBM0002.eps
51


WBM0003.eps
52


WBM0004.eps
53

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. McCormick. 

And now for sort of the higher view, I suspect. Mr. Wu, you’re 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY WU, PROFESSOR OF LAW,

COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, and Members 

of the Committee. Thanks for having me testify, and thank you 

very much also for directing your attention to this issue. 

What I want to emphasize in my remarks today is, as you suggested, the long view. I want to suggest that the issue the Committee faces here and the Congress faces here is really not a new 

issue, despite the fancy label of ‘‘net neutrality.’’ It is a very old 

problem that this Nation has always had—the problem of the 

abuse of market power on information networks. This is a problem 

that’s been confronted as far back as the telegraph, through the 

Bell networks, through every stage of telecommunications history, 

and it has at every stage been important that Government do the 

minimum that it needs to do to prevent the worst anticompetitive 

practices from occurring. 

Now, I want to start by discussing why there’s been such a popular reaction to this issue of network neutrality, and I think we 

live in an era where the Internet has become part of the infrastructure of American life. That is to say, people rely on the Internet 

the way they rely on the electric network, the way they rely on the 

roads, the way they rely on the telephone. They plan their lives 

around it. They plan weddings. They buy airplane tickets. People 

use this network for their daily life. And I think that’s why there 

was such a surprise and reaction when the Bells began to announce plans that they would be considering plans and situations 

where they would be picking and choosing favorites, trying to decide which companies should get favored access and which should 

get less favored access. And I think that cannot fail but to provoke 

a reaction. 

You know, if you allow an analogy, it might as if pne day the 

electric company were to say from here on forth your refrigerator 

you purchased from Samsung isn’t going to work quite as well as 

the one purchased from General Electric. That might make more 

money for the electric company. It might make more money for 

General Electric. But it’s obvious that this would be a bad outcome 

for competition between refrigerators. And that’s exactly the situation we face today. 

The problem with network discrimination is it is inherently a tax 

and a distortion on competition in the network. The situation we 

have today, the basic layout, is that you have an extremely vigorous market operating on top of the Internet, operating on top of 

the infrastructure. It’s a market where someone with very little resources, just a good idea, a website, and people willing to invest, 

can almost overnight become a billion-dollar company. Companies 

like Amazon, companies like eBay, companies like Google started 

very, very small, with almost nothing. Today, if you write a good 

blog, if you’re clever and smart enough to say funny things or have 

insight into politics, you can get more readers than the Washington 

Post or the New York Times. 

54

This is how the free market is supposed to work. The markets 

on top of the Internet are probably the best examples in our current economy of markets working the way the free market is supposed to work. They’re low barriers to entry, they’re entrepreneurial, they’re innovative, and they are a driving part of the 

American economy. 

The only problem with this market is it has one Achilles heels, 

and that is the infrastructure. The access side of this market has 

never been competitive. It is not competitive today. Over 90 percent 

of Americans have a choice between one or two companies. And the 

threat, the real threat, is that the anticompetitive, the noncompetitive side of this network will spill over into what is the best functioning market in the United States today, the infrastructure—the 

market that is on top of the Internet’s infrastructure. That is the 

trade-off. 

Now, Mr. McCormick and the Bell Companies will explain that 

greater profit is needed because they need to make investments in 

their network, and no one denies that. The question for the Committee and the question for Congress is: What is the best way to 

fund these kind of things? And I suggest to you the worst way is 

to tax innovation and tax competition. I suggest that among the alternatives to Government, the worst way to try and promote a network build-out is allow the network owners, as gatekeepers, as 

crown corporations, to distort what is the strongest and one of the 

most vigorous parts of the American economy. 

Now, not all the plans that have announced are so bad, but some 

of the worst ones amount to what I would call a Tony Soprano 

model of networking; that is to say, they’re simply a threat by companies who are in a position to hurt other companies to make their 

life difficult. If you are offering some companies better service and 

degrading others, you are saying pay us or we will ruin your business. That’s simply a protection scheme and not a market strategy. 

That’s anticompetitive conduct, a threat of anticompetitive conduct, 

and even if you believe, as I do, in limited Government, there must 

be a role of Government to guarantee the very basics of a fair market and prevent the worst anticompetitive conduct. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM WU

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, 

Over the last several months, the debate over Network Neutrality has provoked 

rather more of a reaction than I think anyone might have thought, and I want to 

begin by considering why. 

I think there are several reasons. First and foremost, this is an issue that affects 

people directly. Once upon a time the internet was a kind of toy, used by hobbyists, 

scientists, and geeks. But today it’s something different: it has become part of America’s basic infrastructure. It has become as essential to people and to the economy 

as the roads, the electric grid, or the telephone. It’s an infrastructure that people 

and firms depend on for everyday activities, whether planning weddings, managing 

investments, or running a small business. 

Given this infrastructure, Americans are accustomed to basic rights to use the 

network as they see fit. That’s why there’s been surprise and indignation over plans, 

advanced by the Bells, to begin deciding what consumers want, by slowing down 

disfavored companies, and speeding up favored companies. It’s as if the electric company one day announced that refrigerators made by General Electric would henceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
55

1 Cf. Federal Communications Commissions, ‘‘High-Speed Services for Internet Access,’’ as of 

12/31/04, available at <http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html>. 2For more on the early history of the telegraph, see Robert L. Thompson, Wiring a Continent: 

The History of the Telegraph in the United States 1832–1866 (1947); Daniel J Czitrom, Media 

and the American Mind: From Morse to McLuhan, ch. 1 (1982); Paul Starr, the Creation of the 

Media 184 (2005). 3Starr, the Creation of the Media, 184. 

4On this episode, see Carterfone, 13 F.C.C.2d 420 (1968); See Jay Atkinson & Christopher 

Barnekov, A Competitively Neutral Approach to Network Interconnection 3 (Office of Plans & 

Policy, FCC, Working Paper No. 34, Dec. 2000); Kevin Werbach, Breaking the ICE, 4 J. Telecom 

& High Tech. L.J. (2005).

forth not work quite as well as those made by Samsung. That would be a shock, 

because when it comes to the electric grid and the internet, people are used to a 

network that they are free to use as they wish. 

Second, whatever AT&T and others may claim as motives, the potential for abuse 

of market power is obvious to everyone. Ninety-four percent of Americans have either zero, one, or two choices for broadband access.1 Many of us wish things were 

otherwise, but they are not. 

Given today’s market, it’s obvious that a firm like AT&T may earn, at the margin, 

more money by distorting competition among internet firms. It can, through implicit 

threats of degradation, extract a kind of protection money for those with the resources to pay up. It’s basically the Tony Soprano model of networking, and while 

it makes some sense for whoever is in a position to make threats, it isn’t particularly good for the nation’s economy, innovation, or consumer welfare. 

The problem faced here is actually not new at all—it is a familiar problem of market power on networks that government has grappled with since the days of the 

telegraph. What I want to make clear is the central economic tradeoff involved in 

these kinds of cases. Letting the internet or any infrastructure become discriminatory may offer marginally more profit for operators. But it does so at the cost of 

a tax on network competition and innovation. Whether it’s a nation’s ports, roads, 

canals, or information networks, discrimination comes at a price to the activities 

that depend on the infrastructure. 

That’s why at nearly every stage in the history, governments have maintained at 

least a basic anti-discrimination rule to block the worst forms of anti-competitive behavior. And today, that’s all that’s needed—a simple ban on the worst kinds of behavior; a basic rule whose goal is simply to guarantee basic consumer rights and 

let the free market work. 

NETWORK DISCRIMINATION PROBLEMS IN HISTORY AND TODAY

Problems of network discrimination are nothing new. Network owners with market power have always been tempted to use their gatekeeper position to discriminate between favored and disfavored uses. 

The history, in fact, goes as far back as the 1860s, when Western Union, the telegraph monopolist, signed an exclusive deal with the Associated Press. Other wire 

services were priced-off the network—not blocked, but discriminated against.2 The 

result was to build Associated Press into a news monopoly that was not just dangerous for business, but dangerous for American democracy. As telecommunications 

historian Paul Starr writes ‘‘Western Union had exclusive contracts with the railroads; AP had exclusive contracts with Western Union; and individual newspapers 

had exclusive contracts with AP. These linkages made it difficult for rival news 

services to break in.’’ 3 The AP monopoly had an agenda: it didn’t just favor Google 

or Yahoo—it went as far as to chose politicians it liked and those it didn’t. As Historian Menahem Blondheim has documented, AP used its Western Union-backed monopoly to influence politics in the late 19th century, even going so far as to exercise 

censorship on behalf of the State. The method was simple: when faced with messages from disfavored politicians, the wires simply didn’t carry them. 

A much more recent example comes from the 1960s, when the Bells would not 

allow anyone to hook up anything to their telephone system other than a Bell telephone.4 It took the courage of the D.C. Circuit, and later the FCC, to force Bell to 

accept a consumer’s right to attach anything to the network not dangerous to the 

network. To that courage we owe better choice in telephones, and over time much 

more. To the freedom of network attachments we also owe the answering machine, 

the fax machine, and finally the modem and the whole birth of personal networking. 

I don’t want to overstate the point, but freeing network attachments from Bell control, as technical as that sounds, has played a part in making this country the leadVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
56

5See Jay Atkinson & Christopher Barnekov, A Competitively Neutral Approach to Network 

Interconnection 3 (Office of Plans & Policy, FCC, Working Paper No. 34, Dec. 2000).

er of the world in information technology. Here’s what two FCC economists, Jay Atkinson & Christopher Barnekov, said about freeing network attachments from Bell 

control: 

‘‘we believe that the recent development of the Internet, and of much of Information Technology, would not have happened if CPE (for example, modems) 

were still marketed only by LECs. The blossoming of the CPE market into a 

highly competitive industry offering a wide variety of choice at low cost and 

rapid technological advances, and enabling previously unknown possibilities 

such as the increasingly numerous Internet services, is arguably a direct consequence of the deregulation of CPE.’’ 5

So what do we have today? In terms of market structure, you have a range of 

diverse and highly competitive markets operating on top of the internet’s basic infrastructure. These markets are viciously competitive. Invent a new search engine, 

like Google did, and in a few years you can be a multi-billion dollar concern. Write 

a popular blog, and if you’re lucky you can have nearly as many readers as the New 

York Times. Conversely, many more businesses and ideas have failed, like the 

famed ‘‘pets.com,’’ but usually on the merits. 

These markets functioning on top of the internet are in many ways an economist’s 

dream. Barriers to entry are low. Startup costs are minimal: many successful business began with just an idea and a good web site. Competition is mostly 

meritocratic—the best online stores win, not the ones with a famous names or the 

right connections. Meritocratic competition, in turn, leads to Darwinian or what 

economists call ‘‘Schumpeterian’’ innovation. That just means that new technologies 

supplant the old, in a constant process of industrial rebirth. In all, today’s markets 

operating on top of the internet’s neutral infrastructure may be some of the best 

examples of markets working like the free markets are supposed to. 

But this thriving market has an Achilles heel. For there’s one part of the net 

which isn’t competitive at all: broadband access. The access networks are part of the 

old telecom world—monopolistic, slow-moving, well-connected in Washington, and 

prone to anti-competitive behavior. They are the ‘‘Broadband Bottleneck.’’ And the 

Bells, who lead the way in their efforts to change the internet, are almost an extension of government, fed and raised on government subsidies and rate-setting since 

1913 or so. It is no surprise that they should be leading the way, looking for a way 

to make the free market of the internet work more and more like the old Bell monopoly. 

THE TRADEOFF

In any discussion of neutrality rules, the Bells and even the cable companies will 

always turn back to their one big argument: we need more money to build the infrastructure, and if you don’t give it to us, we won’t build it. I think the government 

needs to learn how to stand up to these kinds of threats. What we have here in 

truth is a tradeoff. The Bells want permission to discriminate in exchange for a 

promise that they’ll use any money earned to build more infrastructure. But even 

if the Bells make more money, and even if that money is actually invested in infrastructure deployments, that doesn’t mean the tradeoff costs don’t exist. The tradeoff 

is a distortion, a tax, on the healthy markets that are on top of the basic network. 

It is inevitable that a discriminatory infrastructure will affect competition and innovation in the markets that depend on it. Imagine, for a moment, that private 

American highway companies reserved a lane for Ford cars. That would be good for 

Ford, but obviously would affect competition as between Ford and General Motors. 

It would also slow innovation—for it would no longer be the best car than wins, but 

the one that signs the best deals and slows down their competitors. The race is no 

longer to build a better car, but to fight for a better deal with the highway company. 

That’s the threat to innovation on the internet. Today, as I said early, you can 

start a business on the internet with relatively little capital. But in a world where 

AT&T or Verizon decides who gets priority access, entrepreneurs get a different 

message. Its not who has a better product: its who can make a deal with AT&T, 

Verizon, Comcast or Time-Warner. That’s a different kind of market, one more like 

the old days of telecommunications. That’s when starting a network business meant 

making a deal with a big Telco, or forget it. 

In short, the long-term costs to the economy of allowing a discriminatory internet 

are real. Encouraging infrastructure investments is a serious challenge, but in the 

end one only tangentially related to the Network Neutrality debate. The real spur 

57

6 ‘‘Madison River Communications, LLC Order and Consent Decree,’’ March 3, 2005, <http:/

/www.fcc.gov/voip/>. 

to network deployment and innovation will be market entry—whether municipal 

broadband, or otherwise, that scares today’s providers into offering something better. Indeed, even given the limited competition we have today, it is the superiority 

of the cable network that has goaded the Bells into beginning fiber optic deployments. For these deployment decisions, facilities-based competition is the strongest 

answer, and letting gatekeepers tax application competition is really a sideshow. 

Taxing innovation is hardly the only, and probably the most expensive way to encourage infrastructure deployment. 

ON THE CASE FOR MAINTAINING GOVERNMENT’S ROLE

I think many people agree instinctively that an open and neutral internet has 

been a good thing for the nation. It’s been good for consumers, good for entrepreneurs, and good for the U.S. economy. Countries become rich through innovation, 

and need basic infrastructure to innovate. That’s often the difference between rich 

nations and poor—access to basic infrastructures needed to start a business. In this 

respect the neutral internet has been a sterling example of an infrastructure that 

has driven the national economy. Perhaps, in U.S. history, only the early canals, 

railways, roads, railways and electric networks can compare as boosters to the U.S. 

economy and the well-being of citizens. 

Even if neutrality works better—something the cable operators, to their credit, 

agree with—there is a different kind of hesitation out there. It is as to whether government should be involved at all. After all, Congress has with some exceptions 

stayed away from trying to regulate the Net, and for the most part that’s been a 

good thing. There’s no rate-setting, and no long battles over ‘‘internet unbundling.’’

But in truth things are more complex. As everyone knows, the essential initial 

research and build-out of the internet was funded by the Defense Department. That 

funding of research and development was an astonishing success, in part because 

the resulting design was so good it hasn’t much needed government. The internet 

is by design diverse and decentralized, making competition on top of the infrastructure viciously competitive. That competition has ironed out many of the problems 

government might otherwise be needed to solve. 

But while Government hasn’t acted much to regulate applications, at the infrastructure side the story is completely different. The initial build-outs, as we already 

said, were all government funded. Thereafter, through the entire history of the 

internet, the Government has maintained some kind of rules to maintain basic neutrality on the network—to control, in effect, the bottleneck it helped create. We already discussed the deregulation of network attachment in the 1960s—a matter essential for letting consumers buy modems and hook them up, and a right that 

helped lead to a mass consumer internet. Later, the Federal Communications Commission, through the 1980s and 1990s maintained rules that protected the rights 

of dialup ISPs to reach customers over the phone lines. That tradition continued 

when, in the early 2000s, Chairman Michael Powell announced the ‘‘network freedoms’’ rules. In 2005 the FCC fined a regional phone company that was blocking 

Voice over Internet services, the latest of a long tradition of efforts to protect Network Neutrality.6

What do these stories have in common? At each stage, the internet’s vigorous 

competition has relied on one baseline government guarantee: consumers get the 

use their network as they like. That’s the same deregulatory instinct that government needs now—to guarantee consumers access to whatever content and applications they want, free of discrimination and playing favorites. 

Some of you may feel hesitant, feel that government’s role will necessarily be complex. It need not be. All government needs to say is this: leave things the way they 

are. It needs merely to recognize consumers’ rights to access the content and applications of their choice, free from discrimination, and give meaningful remedies when 

those freedoms are interfered with. 

The best proposals for network neutrality rules are simple. They ban abusive behavior like tollboothing and outright blocking and degradation. And they leave open 

legitimate network services that the Bells and Cable operators want to provide, such 

as offering cable television services and voice services along with a neutral internet 

offering. They are in line with a tradition of protecting consumer’s rights on networks whose instinct is just this: let customers use the network as they please. No 

one wants to deny companies the right to charge for their services and charge consumers more if they use more. But what does need to be stopped is raw discriminaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
58

tion that is nothing more than a tax on innovation taken by government-supported 

corporations. 

CONCLUSION

This mission—protecting consumer choice against market power—is a minimum 

and appropriate role of government. I wouldn’t be here if there were five broadband 

providers, each competing to give customers the best and fastest service possible. 

If that were the case, I am certain that the best service would win out—if one company blocked or slowed some companies, consumers would run away. If a rental car 

company doesn’t let you drive the car where you wanted, you’d choose a different 

company. The problem is the lack of choice in this market. 

Let me close by looking at who’s on each side. The Bell companies have taken the 

lead in moving things back to the world where they pick and choose who gets better 

access on the network. Who wants that? Very few people. Not bloggers, libertarian, 

conservative, or liberal, who know that larger media outlets will be favored over 

them. Not the application makers, among the most active sectors of the nation’s 

economy. Not anyone who dislikes or distrusts excesses of centralized power. Not 

even cable operators. And, when made aware, certainly not consumers. In fact, no 

one wants this but the Bells themselves, and perhaps that tells us something.

Mr. CANNON. The Chair would note that all members of the 

panel concluded their remarks in remarkably good time. We appreciate that. 

I’d ask unanimous consent that the following items be made part 

of the hearing record: testimony from Mark Cooper of Consumers 

Union; a letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner from the National 

Broadcasters supporting net neutrality protections; testimony from 

Kyle McSlarrow; an open letter from small, medium, and large 

Internet companies opposing the Energy and Commerce bill; and 

the Federal Communications Commission press release of April 3, 

2006. Pardon me. That should be the National Religious Broadcasts. Somehow I skipped over that very important distinction. And 

without objection, so ordered. 

The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes to ask questions, and 

first, a subject dear to my heart that I’d like a quick opinion on 

from all of you. Should we extend and make permanent the Internet Tax Freedom Act’s moratorium on the taxation of Internet access? Let’s just go down the line? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Yes. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes. 

Mr. WU. I haven’t thought about it before, but why not? 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you for the quick answers. Do you have any 

rationale? This is not exactly the record we’re building, but are we 

going to get investment—is the lack of a permanent moratorium 

chilling investment in any of your views? Mr. McCormick? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that, you know, 

consumption taxes were typically applied as a matter of policy on 

those areas of the economy where we want to discourage consumption. Internet is an area of the economy, and particularly the information economy, where we want to encourage further investment 

and consumption, so that the whole theory of tax policy in that 

area would be to keep hands off the Internet when it comes to taxation. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I note that every other member of the 

panel is concurring. I agree with that, so let’s cut that one off and 

move on to some other issues. 

59

Mr. McCormick, you mentioned that consumers have a range of 

broadband options, but can you explain the apparent discrepancy 

between that in your remarks and the statistics provided by the 

FCC that 98.8 percent of advanced service lines—the advanced 

service line marketplace is cable and DSL? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under traditional competitive analysis, the immediate choice to the consumer and the 

contestability of the market are both restraints upon price. Market 

contestability is very present today. We have access to the Internet 

today over DSL, over cable modem. There’s satellite access wherever you have a view of the Southern sky. There is wireless access 

to the Internet. There is now unlicensed spectrum available to 

those who want to invest, unlicensed spectrum through Wi-Fi and 

Wi-MAX technologies. In fact, Google has now entered into partnerships where it’s providing, for a fee, Internet access. 

So what you have is you have both consumer choice and you 

have market contestability. Indeed, even at a convention like the 

COMPTEL convention, you have individuals like Jeff Compton of 

Telscape Communications being reported in Communications Daily 

as saying that it would be a mistake for the Bells to push competitors off of wirelines because, he says, ‘‘If the competitive industry 

is pushed off telecom wires, it will ally with cable, broadband over 

powerline providers, wireless carriers, or even satellite companies. 

The Bells will be sitting there with the infrastructure maintained 

and less of the market share.’’

I’d like to introduce this article for the record because of the variety of consumer choice. 

Mr. CANNON. Without objection. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, if I might just respond very briefly to that? 

Mr. CANNON. Certainly. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. The statistics you cited are absolutely correct. 

There is no real competition in that, and I’d also note that that’s 

in the residential marketplace. In the business marketplace, without the access rules imposed under the Communications Act, there 

would be relatively little competition; fewer than 3 percent of the 

buildings in this country have alternative fiber going into them. 

And with respect to satellite and broadband over powerline and 

other services, the reality is less than 1 percent of the services are 

being provided over that. These are not competitive alternatives at 

the moment, and they probably won’t be in the foreseeable future. 

And I’d just like to add for the record, on page 6 of my testimony 

we cited a Wachovia analysis that basically said there’s a cozy duopoly structure here and that’s what’s allowing Verizon to raise 

their low-end DSL price from $15 to $18 and tack on a $20 surcharge. So if that’s a competitive marketplace, then, you know, I 

think we’re all missing something here. 

Mr. CANNON. Does anyone on the panel know how many consumers current access the Internet over powerlines? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. According to the FCC’s own statistics, it’s less 

than 1 percent. 

Mr. CANNON. Right. That’s for all——

Mr. COMSTOCK. That’s for all access over——

Mr. CANNON. Not just powerlines, which are——

60

Mr. COMSTOCK. Right. 

Mr. CANNON. It seems to me that the point here is that we have 

lots of potential, but, in fact, we have sort of a duopoly. Can I just 

ask the panel their views on municipal build-out for access to the 

Internet? Starting with you, Mr. Misener, if you’d like. 

Mr. MISENER. Well, certainly more competition is better. The 

sooner the better, the better for American consumers, American innovation, American industry. It’s just not there yet. It won’t be 

here anytime soon. 

Mr. CANNON. Are you familiar with the Swedish model? 

Mr. MISENER. The Swedish model? 

Mr. CANNON. Yes, of Internet build-out. [Laughter.] 

It provides wonderful access. 

Mr. MISENER. I have no recollection. 

Mr. CANNON. They are—Sweden—— [Laughter.] 

It was the after-dinner drinks, I suspect, but thank you. Does 

anyone know about Sweden, what’s happened with the build-out in 

Sweden? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. The municipalities are building out the infrastructure and——

Mr. CANNON. It’s actually private, but has done—it’s been a very 

interesting process. Do you have a comment, Mr. McCormick? Do 

you have any members who are municipals? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Well, we have members that are supplying the 

service to municipalities, and I second what Paul said. But I think 

the key point everybody has to remember, regardless of whether 

it’s municipalities or someone else, all of these are smaller networks that need to connect to the larger networks. 

Mr. CANNON. Right. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. And I think that’s really the key, is without 

strong interconnection rules, a smaller network has no chance. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. I guess my point, Mr. Chairman, is that——

Mr. CANNON. Let me just ask it this way, because my time is almost up. You can answer as long as you’d like, but I can’t imagine 

that you guys would be opposed to the municipals building out and 

adding to your network. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Our view has been that as long as they come 

in and compete on an equal basis with the private sector. But as 

I said, I represent 1,200 companies. A number of them are smaller 

rural companies. In many of these areas, there is not Internet access today. What’s standing in the way of Internet access is investment. The technology is there, whether it’s broadband over 

powerline, whether it’s unlicensed spectrum, whether it’s cable 

modem or DSL, or whether it’s wireless. There is no technological 

barrier to entry. The only barrier to entry is the willingness to invest and to deploy. And historically in this country, people invest 

and deploy if they feel that they can get a return on their investment. 

So for everyone sitting here at the table, there is an opportunity 

for them to invest and deploy Internet access. 

Mr. CANNON. I think the—could you just—pardon me, I’ve gone 

over my time, but just let me ask: Isn’t deployment dependent upon 

many of your members connecting with these smaller networks? 

61

Mr. MCCORMICK. There is a history in the Internet of interconnection on a pairing arrangement. I am not aware of any problems relating to interconnection of Internet networks that has not 

been—the only one I’m aware of is the one that you mentioned, 

Madison River, which was dealt with immediately. But every WiFi network that’s being deployed is connecting with the Internet. 

There’s been no problem whatsoever. 

Mr. CANNON. I plead the panel Members to accept my apology for 

going over time and hope that none of them follows my example. 

I yield back now and recognize the senior Member of the Committee, the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very important and informative set of statements that have come from the 

witnesses. 

Professor Wu, what we’re gathered here about in discussing market neutrality, net neutrality, is really a question of whether market power is going to be able to prevail over and intercept and control content; and that at the same time, the Federal Communications Commission has been moving away from this issue, making 

it very hard for consumers to seek a remedy without having to all 

get lawyers. Is that a fair interpretation of what I’ve been hearing 

from the majority of the witnesses at the table today? 

Mr. WU. I think it is, Congressman Conyers, and this is a situation with historical precedent. I’ll give you one strong example from 

history. 

In the 1860’s, the telegraph companies, which were also a monopoly—Western Union—signed an exclusive deal with Associated 

Press that only allowed Associated Press to be carried over the 

wires; that is to say, they only allowed—they didn’t actually block 

other companies. They just discriminated against other companies. 

That in turn led to a news monopoly in the late 19th century 

which was a threat not only to American business and competition 

but a threat to American democracy, because this was a combined 

action of the telegraph monopoly plus the news monopoly that 

would pick political favorites, choose politicians they liked, and run 

only their news and their information over the wires. 

I don’t want to suggest we’re at that far of a stage, but what I’m 

suggesting is when network owners pick favorites, that’s very dangerous for the American democracy and dangerous for American 

business. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, the idea of network neutrality, a few years 

ago I didn’t see a problem but—I would argue that there wasn’t a 

problem then. I’ve got statements now from people in the business 

who use—who have market power, control the pipes, who are saying we’re going to start charging, we’re going to start discriminating. 

Is that, Mr. Misener, a fair appraisal of what the issues are that 

bring us to the table here this afternoon? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, sir, Mr. Conyers. Things have changed. It’s 

not the case that this is a static circumstance. The market has 

radically consolidated over the past few years. Ten years ago, soon 

after my company started in business, there were dozens of ISPs 

in any major metropolitan area. Currently, at best, you’ll get two 

broadband ISPs serving an area. As Mr. Comstock pointed out, 

62

something less than 1 percent of consumers are taking broadband 

Internet access from someone not on cable or a telco. 

The other thing is that the FCC has deregulated last year to 

allow longstanding nondiscrimination principles to be removed 

from the books before competition arrived. I think we all wish 

there were competition and all believe that, were there competition, the rules would not be necessary. But the Commission moved 

first before the competition arrived. 

Mr. CONYERS. I just wanted to ask Mr. McCormick, we’ve got a 

number of quotations from industry leaders, from SBC—all friends 

of mine—Verizon—some less friendly—BellSouth. But the whole 

idea is that they’re saying network operators must be free to control the type and quality of service on the system. How does that 

comport with what you’ve told us this afternoon, sir? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Mr. Conyers, I think what Mr. Whitacre and 

others in the industry like Mr. Notebaert have done over the course 

of the last couple months is respond to—try to respond in a very 

thoughtful way to that in two ways: First, they have said we will 

not block, degrade, or impair anyone’s access to the Internet. With 

regard to operating the network, the way we currently operate it, 

by making sure that certain applications are afforded a level of security or privacy, we have to have the flexibility to do that in the 

future. 

So, for example, today the Federal Government comes to us, and 

they say——

Mr. CONYERS. But you’re telling me that I should sleep comfortably in my bed tonight because I shouldn’t take these too seriously. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. No. I think that you should take them seriously, but I’m trying to explain what they meant by that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. And what they meant was that there are network applications, for example, Bank of America comes and they 

want to have a virtual private network that is secured for privacy 

purposes. That network operates over the Internet, but we plug 

into that network certain security and quality of service applications. The Federal Government comes to us and needs secured applications for national security. Health care facilities come to us, 

and they need to have virtual private networks. We need to be able 

to continue to be able to manage the networks——

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I don’t know if Ed Whitacre was thinking 

about that when he said, ‘‘Now, what they’’—Google and Yahoo!—

‘‘would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them 

do that.’’ Those are—that’s his vernacular. 

I don’t think he’s talking about the concerns that you’re explaining to me. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, I think that what he is relating is that, 

as Google and Microsoft and others move into new applications 

that require enormous amounts of bandwidth, that Google and 

Microsoft will be looking for what amounts to virtual private networks. And I think, Mr. Conyers, that terms like ‘‘toll lanes on the 

Internet’’ and others, those have not—that’s not been our terminology. 

63

The network neutrality debate has two sides to it: one is the 

service provider side; the other is the content and application side. 

This Committee took its first look at search engines in connection 

with airline reservation systems and said there should be no screen 

bias. Today, if you wanted to buy a book, Trover Book Shop is 

about three blocks away. But if you go on Google and plug in that 

you would like to buy a book near 1st and Independence Avenue, 

S.E., you will get ten responses; nine of them—eight of them will 

be Barnes & Noble book stores, as much as 8 miles away, and Trover Books won’t be listed until number eight down. If you plug in 

that you just want to buy a book, the first response you will get 

is Amazon.com out of more than 1 billion responses. 

Now, the reason for that is that they have paid for priority. 

There is a screen bias in Google, and the screen bias with regard 

to ‘‘buy a book’’ is a priority that’s paid by Amazon.com that disadvantages Trover. 

So if the Federal Government is going to get into the business 

of regulating network neutrality, pursuant to these FCC principles, 

that applies both to the service providers and to the content providers. And this kind of screen bias is precisely the kind of screen 

bias that this Committee investigated in connection with computer 

reservation systems in the airline industry. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, this is—I’m way past my time, but——

Mr. WU. Can I comment? 

Mr. CANNON. But asking very interesting questions. 

Mr. WU. Can I comment? There’s a large difference in the search 

engine market and the Internet access market. The search engine 

market is a highly competitive market in which it is truly survival 

of the fittest. Google comes along, A9 comes along. There’s an ongoing battle. And customers go to whoever gives them the best search 

results. 

What we’re talking about here is a completely different issue. 

We’re talking about a noncompetitive market with one and two 

competitors, at most, with some others on the side. It’s a completely different situation. The analogy is not apt. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Except the market share of Google in the 

search engine market far exceeds the market share of the Bell companies with regard to Internet access. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman’s time has expired, and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have the panelists with us today. 

Mr. McCormick, telecom companies provide capital to build out 

and maintain the Internet’s hard infrastructure pipes. Of course, 

we want more pipes. We want growing Internet access and lowering prices. 

If I’m a small businessman or small businesswoman or rural 

Internet provider paying to use your pipes, competing against one 

of your companies, is it your belief that that constitutes fair competition in an open market? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Mr. Coble, let me make sure that I understand. 

What you’re saying is that you are a small business owner, like a 

64

furniture store, that would be trying to obtain Internet access over 

our pipes? 

Mr. COBLE. Yeah. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. And you want to sell furniture and you’re concerned that because you’re having to pay the local telephone company in North Carolina for Internet access that you might somehow be disadvantaged? 

Mr. COBLE. Yeah, that’s the direction in which I’m headed. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. I cannot imagine a situation where they would, 

but I can tell you, just like with Trover Books, if you were to plug 

into the search engine that you want to buy furniture in a small 

town in North Carolina, what you’re going to find is that out of 

hundreds of thousands of responses, you’re going to get eBay and 

you’re probably going to get Amazon.com and you’re going to get 

a few other large companies that are paying for priority to be listed 

on that search engine as the first two or three examples. 

So this part of net neutrality with regard to content and application providers is a very significant issue in the competitive realm 

and one that I know the Committee will want to take a look at 

with regard to the broader issue. 

Mr. COBLE. Now, the professor’s body language tells me he wants 

to insert oars into these waters. 

Mr. WU. You know, I think you bring up a very important point, 

which is that small businesses are very dependent on infrastructure. They need roads to get to the rest of the country, they need 

phone lines, and they now need the Internet. They rely on getting 

neutral access to whatever they depend upon for the Internet. And 

the whole problem with the Bell Companies starting to pick and 

choose favorites is that small businesses cannot be sure that they’ll 

get the access they need to the companies that they partner with. 

Or if the small business is a company itself that wants to succeed 

on the Internet, it needs to be in a position where it can enter the 

market really without having to make a deal with the Bells. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Comstock, did I detect body language from you 

as well, or Mr. Misener won? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Absolutely, sir. What I think the important difference is—and while this Committee may well want to look into 

prioritization of screens and the practices of content providers, it’s 

a totally distinct issue because the infrastructure that’s essential 

for all of the content providers is that transmission network. And 

that’s where the essential facility. That’s where there’s a bottleneck. This is like—very much like someone owning a road and getting to decide which cars will travel on it. And the problem in the 

furniture example would be if the Bell Company were also—or the 

cable company also owned a furniture store and then said, ‘‘I’m 

going to favor my furniture store over someone else,’’ this is becoming an essential medium for people to do their business. They’re advertising, they’re reaching consumers. And this is about making 

sure there’s rules that allow people to get access to that infrastructure on a nondiscriminatory basis. 

Mr. COBLE. I want to ask the professor a question, but I don’t 

want to cut Mr. Misener out. Okay. Professor, let me ask you this 

before my red light illuminates. Adequate infrastructure is vital to 

Internet access. How does net neutrality affect rural areas where 

65

smaller telecom providers maintain infrastructure, A? And let me 

ask you this: In the era—in this era of wireless phones and growing Internet services, what markets or regulatory measures protect 

the profitability of these rural telecom companies? And I ask that, 

gentlemen, because I’m subjective. I have rural outfits in my district. 

Mr. WU. Right. I don’t think that they are the same issues. For 

rural areas, as much as the rest of the country, it’s important that 

the businesses and people in rural areas get the access they need 

to a neutral infrastructure, the neutral Internet. They’re as dependent on the Internet for economic growth as the rest of the 

country. 

Now, what about the precise situations of rural carriers? I don’t 

know if—I think the network neutrality issue is more or less—is 

not directly implicated by that. I think it’s just a different issue. 

There are probably—there’s a lot of money that needs to be spent 

to build infrastructure in rural areas. There’s no question about 

that. Government has ways—Government has ways of encouraging 

companies to build infrastructure. But allowing discrimination as 

a way to encourage companies to build infrastructure strikes me as 

one of the worst ways to do so. It’s a tax on innovation, it’s a tax 

on the infrastructure that doesn’t actually promote what you need. 

If you want to have rural build-outs, Government needs to subsidize them. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you——

Mr. MCCORMICK. That’s not necessarily true. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Mr. Coble, the short answer to your question is 

these rural companies have all lived under exactly what we’re asking for for the last 60 years of their life. They were regulated as 

common carriers. It didn’t in any way impede their ability to provide the service that they offer, which is transmission. So net neutrality is nothing more than the reimposition of common carrier 

rules or antitrust rules that mimic the common carrier rules. 

They’re flip sides of the same coin. So this is not something that 

they haven’t lived with before. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, gentlemen. Before the Chairman 

keelhauls me, I’m going to yield back. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. CANNON. I wish there was a bright-line rule about what 

questions were interesting or not, but I was certainly engaged in 

what you were asking, Mr. Coble. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this hearing 

proves the value of this task force, and I look forward to additional 

hearings, because as we’ve listened to the testimony, at least to me 

it becomes clearer and clearer the need to make sure that networks 

remain available to all users and there be some net neutrality 

rules. 

I was on the Committee when we did the Telecom Act in 1996, 

and really since that time, and especially in the last several years 

we’ve seen a reconglomeration, I guess, if that’s the right word, of 

telecom companies. And I think about what the old AT&T monopoly was like in terms of competition. I mean, you couldn’t hook up 

an answering machine or a fax machine to the network. It certainly 

66

disfavored new technology. And since we lessened that death grip, 

I mean, technology exploded. And in my part of the world, in Silicon Valley, there were—the companies that have really led the 

economy really were allowed to do that because of the freedom to 

innovate that the limitation on the monopoly provided. And I worry 

if we allow, for example, the incumbents to control access to 

Google, as has been suggested by some company executives, what 

happens—not just to Google; they’re now a pretty big company—

but to the next Larry and Sergei in a dorm room coming up with 

something that will be Google? I mean, we need to make sure that 

there is an environment for innovation and creativity, and that’s 

what monopolies prevent. 

I am concerned—I just want to say one thing about Google. 

They’re just outside my district, and I have thousands of constituents who work for them. And I think I just want to correct the 

record. It is a mistake to suggest that anything but the algorithm 

they uses—they use come up with the results. I mean, they have 

an algorithm that favors hits. They also have paid placements, but 

I use Google all the time. The paid placements are very—I mean, 

they’re evident. They’re marked as paid placements. Everybody 

knows you can use them or not use them. I just thought it was important to mention that, and as has been mentioned by the witnesses, there are a plethora of search engines. It’s a very competitive market. And, for example, the Amazon search engine is for the 

Amazon site. I mean, and a lot of sites have sell sites. So it’s a mistake and misleading to try and mix those two together. 

I just—the one issue that has been raised by the incumbent monopolies, and I think we have to discuss them in that way, because—what is it?—94 percent or better of all people get their 

Internet access or high-speed Internet access from one of two providers, and that’s the market situation. The one issue that has 

been raised to the Congress in opposition to the net neutrality is 

essentially—I’m paraphrasing—if we don’t get to do it our way, we 

won’t build out the remainder of the network. 

I took a look at fourth quarter revenues for AT&T, fourth quarter 

of 2005, and the report was that they added 1.8 million DSL lines 

in that last year, that the revenues from consumer DSL services 

went up 21 percent last year, and the penetration rate for DSL 

services more than doubled in the last 2 years. They also reported 

that its operating revenues from data services went up more than 

43 percent, the highest rate of all its business segments, to an increase of about 30 percent of its operating expenses. And today the 

reports for the first quarter of 2006 were in, and the data revenues 

rose 85 percent from the last year compared to a 45-percent increase in company-wide revenues and a 57-percent increase in company-wide expenses. 

So I’m looking at really a very positive—I don’t think I own any 

stock in AT&T; I might ask my husband to look at that—a very 

positive revenue stream. I’m wondering, Professor, you’re someone 

who just looks at this, you don’t have any axe to grind, you’re an 

academic. What do you make of their suggestion that if they don’t 

get their way to control access and other users, that they won’t 

build out this network? 

67

Mr. WU. It’s something of a regulatory tactic, and my opinion—

and I think the statistics bear this out and the economy bears this 

out—is that this neutral Internet has been good for everybody. It’s 

floated all boats. It’s been great for the cable companies. It’s been 

great for the Bell Companies. And it’s been great for the application makers and, by extension, the American economy. 

You know, I think that the network attachment point you 

brought up is a great example. The Bells fought tooth and nail to 

prevent consumers from having a right to hook up things to their 

telephone lines because they thought that that would destroy their 

market and that would hurt them. In the end, it turned out to be 

a giant boom. We owe it to that bravery of the FCC and of the D.C. 

Circuit in the 1960’s to say that consumers have a right to hook 

up whatever they want to their telephone, such developments as 

the answering machine, the fax machine, ultimately the Internet 

itself as a mass medium. And I think today that—you know, even 

the cable operators take a different position than the Bell Companies. They say a neutral Internet has been great for them, too. 

They just, you know, feel differently about regulation. 

I think that these kind of threats really represent an old style 

of thinking and a return to a kind of 1960’s idea of centralized network build-outs, which has failed. And I think we need to learn the 

lessons of the 1990’s of what has really succeeded for everybody. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. I would also note that if they don’t deploy their 

networks, if they don’t upgrade their networks, then they can’t 

offer video. And that means the cable companies take more of their 

market share. So I think there’s a strong financial incentive for 

them to upgrade their networks notwithstanding. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McCormick, let me address my first question to you. The 

goal of antitrust law is to maximize consumer choice through free 

markets. How do you think the kind of tiered access that we are 

talking about today will benefit consumers? And, more specifically, 

they’ve been used to a free Internet now for 10 years. How do you 

think they’re going to respond to this kind of tiered approach? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Okay, let’s—I’m hearing a lot of—let me respond to that in terms of what really isn’t in debate, that the 

Hushaphone and Carterphone attachments to the Internet, not in 

debate. I mean, the FCC has said—one of its principles is you can 

attach any lawful device, and we absolutely agree. What’s not in 

debate is that we would in any way block, impair, or degrade consumers’ access to the Internet. Not in debate. 

What I also don’t think is in debate is that everyone would leave 

it in control of the consumer to decide how much capacity they 

want to buy. Do they want to buy one meg? Do they want to buy 

a T-1 line? What amount of Internet access do they want to buy? 

If you’re paying $12.99 for Internet access as opposed to $100, 

you’re probably getting a much bigger pipe. If you are at home 

where you’re running—you know, a business gets a bigger pipe 

than does a residence. 

68

I think that what is in debate here is when you have certain application providers who want to move into new areas that will require enormous bandwidth, such as the delivery of huge amounts 

of video, technology will allow you to do that in one of two ways: 

either by putting a bigger pipe into the home and requiring everybody to have that bigger pipe, or doing certain network configuration that will allow you to compress and to deliver. So that’s a network part. 

What’s in debate here is who pays for that enhanced portion of 

the network. There are a variety of application providers out there 

who would like to say that they’d like to differentiate their product 

by investing. In the same way today a person, if they want to have 

home—a phone answering machine, they can connect it at the end 

of a network, right? Or it can be done inside the network. If you 

have a cell phone, you probably want to go ahead and have the 

messages answered inside the network. 

So the debate here really is who bears the cost. We believe that 

the consumers should be in control. We believe that the consumers 

should decide what costs they want to bear, how much network access they want to buy, and that they should be in control of deciding what sites they want to go visit. Others would like to say that 

they would like to load all of the costs of their own business plans 

onto the consumer, which will require us to raise consumer rates 

to spread out their costs among everybody. That’s not a free market, and we don’t agree with that approach. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. McCormick. 

Mr. Misener, you look like you’re ready to answer, but let me ask 

you a slightly different question that you won’t mind, and it’s sort 

of the other side of the coin. The ISPs spent billions of dollars setting up these networks. Companies like yours use these networks. 

Why shouldn’t they be able to charge what the market will bear? 

And the second part of that question would be: What do you think 

the consumer reaction is going to be? 

Mr. MISENER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smith. It’s hard to know 

where to begin, but I’ll start with saying that we do pay. Companies like mine pay millions of dollars a year for Internet access, 

and we pay based on how much capacity we need to pump into the 

networks. 

Secondly, we support what Mr. McCormick has suggested as consumer tiering of services whereby a high user—a gamer, for example, or someone who wants to watch HDTV on the Internet—pays 

more than someone who occasionally sends e-mail. That makes perfect sense from an economic perspective and a consumer fairness 

perspective. These consumers expect that. They pay more for what 

they—to get more. 

What we don’t like is the concept of taking market power over 

the network and extending it to market power over content. It’s 

been suggested somehow that there’d be this deal made in which 

some content is prioritized for a fee and other content is not thereby degraded. That is physically, technically impossible. We’ve 

heard several times Mr. McCormick say today that he’s not going 

to degrade content. If that’s the case, who on Earth would pay for 

prioritization that doesn’t thereby relatively degrade the competitor’s content? No one’s going to ever pay for that kind of service. 

69

It’s not worthy. The fact of the matter is the way the Internet 

works is that if you prioritize some content, you put some content 

in the fast lane, you by definition at bottleneck choke points put 

other content in the slow lane. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Misener. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just finish with a comment really directed 

toward our full Committee Chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner. I just 

appreciate his having a hearing on this subject because I think it 

emphasizes once again, quite frankly, that the Judiciary Committee is the proper forum to address questions that involve interstate commerce and monopolization. Whether or not it occurs isn’t 

the point. The point is that this is the proper forum to consider 

those kinds of issues. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman. I think the Ranking Member of the full Committee would also thank the gentleman for that 

focus on the jurisdiction of this Committee, which is very important 

to all of us. 

Before we recognize the gentlelady from Texas, let me ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter from the FTC Chairman to Chairman Sensenbrenner on the Brand X decision and 

cable broadband obligations. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much and thank 

the witnesses. I hope that as we probe each of you, as the Members 

inquire, that this will be what it is. It is fact-finding and it is a 

recognition that we have a challenge before us and somewhat of a 

dilemma. And I might echo or associate myself with the words of 

Chairman Cannon to say that—and Congressman Smith, I believe—that this is the appropriate vehicle and venue to address 

these questions. 

Let me first start with you, Professor Wu, because I liked your 

comparison of the refrigerator. We all want to get into a refrigerator now and then, and I think the plainness of your explanation 

of a refrigerator not working because it was one versus another so 

the electricity worked better for the other one, sort of a biased selection of who ate and who did not. Help me understand—and I 

will be going to a few of the other panelists very quickly, if you can 

help me understand that blocking sensation, because we’ve heard 

one witness—and, in fact, I will question Mr. McCormick, because 

he clearly makes the point he will not block, impair, or degrade. 

What is your sense, Professor Wu, that this will, in fact, happen? 

Mr. WU. Thanks. I do think the electric—the electricity network 

is important because it really does capture some of the feelings 

that Americans have got—have gotten used to with the Internet, 

that they plug stuff in and it works or they go to the sites they 

want to go to and they work. And I think I’m going to disagree 

with Mr. McCormick, who keeps saying that degradation is not the 

issue here. Degradation is the central issue here in this case. When 

Bell Companies, when AT&T in particular—and I’ve seen AT&T’s 

plans. Their plans are to give favorable treatment to the companies 

they make deals with. And so it’s exactly as if the electric company 

made a deal with Samsung or made a deal with Kitchenware and 

70

suddenly, you know, your toasters work better, your refrigerator 

works better, and you want to buy a General Electric refrigerator, 

and it just doesn’t work as well, or, you know, it doesn’t function 

the way you’d like, your iron doesn’t get your clothes to be starched 

or——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Sooner or later you get rid of it. 

Mr. WU. Right, and the obvious point is that it distorts competition. It’s not who makes the better refrigerator. It’s who has the 

deal. And so that distorts innovation. It’s no longer survival of the 

fittest. It’s no longer who has the best technology. It’s a question 

of who goes golfing with the CEO of AT&T. And I think that’s not 

the American way. I mean, sometimes it is, but it shouldn’t be the 

American way. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is the—and thank you, Professor. This is, 

I think, the large mountain, Mr. McCormick, that we’ve got to ascend to. And let me first of all acknowledge the reality of life, and 

that is, we thank you for the massive job creation that this industry has created, and certainly out of that, because of the appetite 

of consumers, certainly we’ve had the opportunity for your companies to grow, for jobs to be created, and, of course, for our districts 

to be made happy. But I do want you to try to, if you will, overcome 

I think the very succinct argument that has been made. We are 

fact-finders here today. Block, impair, or degrade the content applications or services, what you’ve said, but my thought is that if I 

build a private road and I pay for it, then it is likely—and that is 

a transportation road. It is likely to have the right to say who travels on that road or not. I don’t want the big 18-wheeler—forgive 

me, truck drivers—that may put potholes in the road. So help me 

understand and appreciate how you will avoid that situation. 

And then I want to—let me do this with Mr. Comstock, because 

you’ve said some very viable things. I want you to jump in right 

after and help me understand why the FCC authority over 

broadband—recently limited their authority over broadband services, and I think you have another comment in here that said the 

subjugation of the economic rights of many to the interests of the 

few has not been limited only to the FCC. So we have some regulatory problems as well. But let me go on to Mr. McCormick, if you 

would. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Thank you very much. I’d like to stick with 

your analogy of the road for a moment, because I think it’s a very 

apt analogy. The Internet today remains a relatively new network, 

like the early road network. And in many areas like the early road 

network, there’s a single lane. And so the way the Internet is built 

is that the consumers who are going to use that network, that road 

network, they pay and that covers the cost of the road network. 

Now, let’s say that somebody comes along and they want to put 

a bunch of 18-wheelers on that network. So now the network has 

to be expanded in order to accommodate the shipper who’s putting 

a bunch of 18-wheelers on that network. Think of Amazon.com or 

Google or some others as that shipper. The consumer—who bears 

the cost of the ones who are going to now load onto that network 

a whole bunch of additional traffic? Should the cost be borne by the 

individual consumer? Should everybody’s rates be increased? Or 

71

should the people who want to load that network with a bunch of 

18-wheelers have to pay for the network expansion? 

We would argue that the analogy with regard to the road network is that if you want to load a whole bunch of traffic onto that 

network, then you help pay for the network expansion. Don’t make 

all of the consumers at home have to pay for that network expansion, because some of those consumers, they may be only buying 

things or using the Internet for stuff that’s shipped by small trucks 

or by cars. 

So I think that that analogy is absolutely, absolutely apropos and 

apt. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentlelady’s time has expired, but I think Mr. 

Misener is anxious to respond. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. He’s anxious and I think Mr. Comstock, if you 

would indulge me for an additional minute, I ask unanimous consent for them to be able to respond. Thank you. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. I’ll be brief, but using that road analogy, I think 

where Mr. McCormick takes you astray is the people who want to 

load the 18-wheelers on are paying for their access to the Internet, 

and the question is, if I pay as a consumer for a road that would 

carry that 18-wheeler to my house, can I get anybody’s 18-wheeler 

or just the 18-wheelers that they say? And what the Bell companies and the cable companies are saying is we may build an 18-

wheeler road to your house, but then you’re only going to get to use 

the sidewalk for your public traffic. The rest of it’s going to be my 

18-wheelers and the people that I say. 

So that’s the problem with this. What’s been abandoned in this—

and you mentioned the subjugation of the rights of many. The FCC 

has said these are not common carrier services. That means that 

with respect to these services, those companies are no longer obligated to provide nondiscriminatory service upon reasonable request. So they won’t block it once they agree to serve you, but as 

long as they reserve the right to not serve you in the first place, 

that’s how they’ll discriminate. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Misener? 

Mr. MISENER. Ms. Jackson Lee, just one more point on the 18-

wheeler analogy. Mr. McCormick misapprehends how the Internet 

works. Those 18-wheelers don’t get there based on the companies’ 

sending them. They only get there when the consumer asks for 

them. And our simple point is that when the consumer asks, he or 

she ought to be able to get whatever 18-wheeler they want, not just 

the ones allowed on by the road owner. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentlelady yields back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very enlightening. 

We’ve been talking about Swedish models and golf courses and 18-

wheelers and sidewalks and streets. 

Mr. CANNON. The Swedish model would never—it would never 

have occurred if Mr. Misener was not so handsome, by the way. 

[Laughter.] 

72

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate that. I hope that wasn’t out of my 

time. 

I thought this was relatively simple when I walked in, and it’s 

become more complicated. I try and look at it from the standpoint 

of a consumer. I’m a frustrated consumer. The house I have here 

in this area is in Virginia. I keep getting ads from Verizon asking 

me to join their broadband, and then every time I call I find out 

their broadband access stops two blocks from my house—close to 

your house, Mr. McCormick. So I believe I have cable, which is 

really the only access I’ve got. 

A couple of questions. One is, look, people have paid additional 

money for broadband over regular telephone lines, and presumably 

that was to cover the costs of the investment made by the phone 

company. Presumably we’re paying for broadband access for cable 

to pay for the investment cost here. What I’m trying to understand 

is Mr. McCormick’s statement that you’re not going to block, you’re 

not going to degrade, you’re not going to interfere with content on 

the one hand, and on the other hand, the suggestion I get in this 

analogy that you’re only going to allow certain 18-wheelers to come 

through to my house. 

Now, what are we talking about? If, in fact, your industry has 

no intent to block, degrade, or interfere with, do you have any objection to any legislation that says you can’t do that and won’t do 

that? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Congressman, the Chairman of the FCC has already said that they feel that they have the authority to prevent 

anybody from blocking, impairing, or degrading. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Right. But what I’m asking is——

Mr. MCCORMICK. And they——

Mr. LUNGREN. —whether you’d object to language in legislation 

which would say that——

Mr. MCCORMICK. The House——

Mr. LUNGREN. —irrespective of what they say, but we will make 

that a matter of law that you can’t do that. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. The House Energy and Commerce Committee 

is going to mark up legislation beginning this evening that has specific language in it that tracks the FCC principles. And so—and we 

are supportive of the language that says that we—the FCC should 

have authority to make sure that we cannot block, impair, or degrade. 

I’m with you. I’m a little confused when we make the statement 

that we’ll not block, impair, or degrade, and then I hear others saying but they’re going to block, impair, or degrade. We’re not going 

to block, impair, or degrade. The FCC is not going to allow it. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Well, let me ask the other two panelists to 

your right, my left. If, in fact, that’s true, why are you worried 

about blocking, degrading, or impairing access to content? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Because there’s a long history here of exactly 

this type of exclusionary behavior. Today in the marketplace, our 

companies face the situation where they go to seek a customer, and 

the Bell Company has said, oh, in order for you to get a lower rate 

on the areas where we have no competition to a business user, you 

must give us all of your traffic in the areas where there is competition. They use specific exclusionary practices to prevent competiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
73

tion. And as I said before, what they keep hiding around is the provision that the Energy and Commerce Committee is looking at 

would restrict the FCC’s jurisdiction to a very narrow set of things 

on an adjudicatory basis, and it is far narrower and far less behavior controlling than the type of antidiscrimination principles contained in the antitrust laws. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, let me ask Mr. McCormick—I mean, he’s 

just give us a specific example that he claims is where your industry does, in fact, impair access except for a price. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, I am unfamiliar with any—what I——

Mr. LUNGREN. I’d like to find out what we’re talking about. I 

mean, I’m tired of talking about 18-wheelers. I’m tired of talking 

about golf. I’d like to know what we’re talking about here. Now, 

does it exist or doesn’t it exist? I’m not going to play games. I’m 

trying to figure out what we’re talking about. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, what we know is that there are—that 

there are hundreds and hundreds of commercial negotiations that 

have been entered into between companies that I represent and 

companies that Mr. Comstock represents, and that those have led 

to finalized deals. We know that at Mr. Comstock’s own convention, 

his people were saying that if the Bells try and push competitors 

off their networks, it’s shortsighted because they can ally with 

cable, BPL providers, wireless carriers, or even satellite companies. 

What we have said is that there’s a marketplace out there that’s 

working, that with regard to last-mile access, there are competitive 

choices and there’s a contestable market for anybody who’s willing 

to invest. So it seems to me that a requirement, as the FCC has 

put forward so far, that says you cannot block, impair, or degrade, 

an FCC that very aggressively monitors the kind of interconnection 

arrangements that Mr. Comstock is talking about, and finally, the 

antitrust laws that he says are strong disincentives to any kind of 

anticompetitive behavior, I would be one to say it sounds to me like 

we’ve already got a belt-and-suspenders approach to this. I’m not 

sure what problem we’re trying to address that hasn’t already been 

addressed. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Once again, we’re talking about fiction here. He’s 

talking about provisions of law that the FCC has affirmatively removed, and that’s the problem. The world is changing. The FCC as 

of last August and then through the Verizon decision in March removed the very protections that made the competition possible that 

he is referring to. That is the problem. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask Professor Wu to comment on that? 

Mr. WU. You know, what the Bell Companies are basically saying here is, ‘‘Trust us.’’ But if I were in their position, if I were the 

gate—if I was in a strong market position to be a gatekeeper of the 

Internet, why wouldn’t you start wanting to degrade and block content, or at least threaten to do so and extract more revenue. It 

makes perfect sense. I’m not saying it’s evil. I’m just saying it’s bad 

for the economy. I think they’re in a logical position to be in a position to advance those kind of business plans. If you look at AT&T’s 

plan specifically, that is their ideas of where to raise and get more 

marginal revenue, by putting a toll booth on companies like Google, 

Yahoo! and so forth. So it makes perfect sense, and, you know, they 

74

won’t want to call it degradation. They’d want to call it priority or 

give it some name so it gets around, you know, potential FCC action. But why wouldn’t they want to do it? It doesn’t—I don’t see 

any reason why not. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this has been a 

wonderful hearing, and I think the witness testimony has been 

very helpful. 

I wanted to ask just a couple questions, the first of Mr. McCormick. In my district, a lot of the industry involves the creation of 

content, and we’ve had a number of discussions over the years 

about how to protect that content from piracy. And the pretty consistent position of the telecommunications industry has been we 

just have a pipeline. It’s a dumb pipeline. It doesn’t discriminate 

between content, and we really can’t be responsible for what goes 

through our pipeline. But it sounds like here you’re now saying we 

should be able to discriminate on what goes through our pipeline 

and be able to pick winners and losers, or at least discriminate in 

a way that helps us recoup the investment necessary to expand the 

pipeline. 

Are you prepared, if you’re allowed this ability to discriminate, 

to also accept the responsibility for illegal content going through 

your pipeline? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Congressman, first, with regard to the existing 

network, the FCC principles that we ascribe to say we shall not 

block, impair, or degrade access to any content or site. So when we 

say to the creative community, ‘‘Don’t hold us liable if somebody’s 

going to a site and downloading illegal material,’’ because the FCC 

principles require that we not block, impair, or degrade. 

Now, at the same time—at the same time, you are probably 

aware that as we have tried to begin to move into video, that we 

have been trying to work with the content community because 

their great fear in the Internet space is being able to have security 

and privacy and being able to have some integrity to control their 

copyright. So when you start hearing us talking about being able 

to work with companies like Disney, like Movielink, like a variety 

of others who are coming to us and saying we would now like to 

explore some new models where we could provide new services to 

the consumer, and we would like to work with you in the development of virtual private networks that will offer us security and privacy and a variety of other functionalities, we’re met with this kind 

of opposition that’s saying, ‘‘Aha, they’re going to advantage some 

and disadvantage others.’’ And so——

Mr. SCHIFF. But if you get into——

Mr. MCCORMICK. —you’ve hit on one of the issues. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If you down the road get into deciding that Grokster 

or Napster or one of the more modern iterations should be in the 

fast lane rather than the slow lane, aren’t you going to be taking 

on some responsibility for the fostering of those services if those 

services are primarily in the business of piracy? Won’t it be more 

difficult for you to claim that we’re just a dumb pipeline? 

75

Mr. MCCORMICK. No. I see it the other way. I see companies that 

are engaged in the development of content and want to protect that 

content from a Grokster or Napster coming to us and saying, ‘‘We 

would like to distribute this content to consumers over the Internet,’’ being able to utilize what is, in effect, a virtual private network. So——

Mr. SCHIFF. And you’ll facilitate making that happen, but what 

happens when the Groksters of the future come to you and ask you 

to facilitate the delivery of their pirated work product? I assume 

you won’t be able to fall back on the response we had to allow them 

to have the fast lane because we can’t discriminate? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, I guess the response to that would be 

that, you know, in many respects, people sometimes don’t even find 

those sites without going through an Internet search engine. So, 

you know, do you go through an Internet search engine and find 

a Grokster site? And then do you hold liable the Internet search 

engine, do you hold liable the service provider, if they find the 

Grokster site by going to Amazon.com and then buying a book that 

has the Grokster site? I think that the issue has been if people like 

Grokster or Napster are engaged in the illegal distribution of content, they should be held liable. What we have done in entering 

into arrangements with the content providers, those who are originating content, their concern with us is that they want to be able 

to have a secure network. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If I can, I because I’m running out of time, I want 

to pose this one question to Mr. Misener that was posed earlier by 

Mr. Conyers or by actually your response to Mr. Conyers, and that 

was the question about the prioritizing of Amazon.com on a search 

engine. And I understand the point that there’s greater competition 

within the search engines, but let’s say that there was that same 

level of competition among the access providers as are among the 

search engines, or that the search engines become less competitive 

because you have two that monopolize. Would you argue that you 

shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on your paying a fee to get 

to the top of the list? I always naively assumed you got to the top 

of the list by having more hits than anyone else, but maybe it’s a 

self-fulfilling cycle. But if the number of entrants into the field of 

access increases, would you allow them to discriminate? If the 

number of search engines decreases, would you come before us and 

argue, well, we should no longer have the ability to discriminate 

in the search engines? 

Mr. MISENER. Again, great questions. There are some two dozen 

search engines out there. If there were two dozen residential 

broadband Internet access providers, we would not be here seeking 

legislation. There aren’t. There’s a duopoly for the present, for the 

near future, probably even for the distant future. This will be a duopoly. They’re seeking to extend their market power. I’m very frustrated by this incredibly obfuscatory argument that somehow this 

is analogous to a search engine. It’s not. A search engine is a destination. Consumers have a choice of going to it. A consumer can 

get broadband Internet access and never, ever once go to Google if 

they so choose. There are another two dozen search engines available to them if they want to use a search engine. They don’t even 

have to use one. But in this circumstance they’re forced to use eiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
76

ther the cable or the telephone company. There is no other choice 

for consumers. It’s a radically different proposition, and the law 

should treat them differently. 

Again, if there were some two dozen broadband Internet access 

providers available to each consumer, we wouldn’t be here. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And, conversely, if the search engines so whittled 

down to two major providers, you would——

Mr. MISENER. Hopefully not because we have a stake in one of 

them. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, hopefully not to the exclusion of the one you 

have the stake in, at least. 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to echo and associate myself with my colleague Mr. Schiff. It’s always amazing to 

me that we came in as classmates together, and he was smarter 

then, and he’s still smarter. But I will try to focus on a slightly different area since he did such a good job where he was. 

When we talk about a duopoly versus, if you will, the power of 

a search engine, the selectivity, to me I just have to ask why is it 

that I shouldn’t treat this like a standard antitrust question. You 

have incredible market power, far past the 10 percent by any 

stretch of the imagine. And, look, we could pretend that satellite 

delivery of Internet and a few other ways are going to grow, but 

it is unlikely, particularly Mr. McCormick, it’s unlikely that either 

of the two entrenched utilities are going to drop below 10-percent 

market share anytime. But more importantly, in a given neighborhood like mine, it is unlikely that you’re going to have all the others available to you anyway. If you have 30 percent, 50 percent, 60 

percent, and more importantly, if your companion is doing exactly 

the same thing, why shouldn’t I treat this simply as a utility that 

has been granted a monopoly, or the equivalent, trying to have a 

tie-in of less desirable services, leveraging the more desirable service or, if you will, the essential service? Why shouldn’t I look at it 

that way? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. I think that—I think to take a traditional antitrust analysis is the way to do it, and a traditional antitrust analysis looks at the existing market and the contestability of the market. 

A couple of points. First, the market share of the telephone companies with regard to Internet access is less than the market share 

of Google with regard to Internet searches. So——

Mr. ISSA. Well, wait a second. With all due respect I’ll define the 

relevant market here. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Okay. 

Mr. ISSA. We’re talking about the pipe. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. And with regard to the pipe, you would have 

to look at all the ways to access the Internet. So I would take issue 

with the duopoly. You can access the Internet, DSL, cable modem, 

wireless—Sprint is offering a full wireless access to the Internet—

satellite if you have a clear view of the Southern sky; in some 

77

areas, broadband over powerline, but where it does not exist, it 

could exist but for investment; Wi-Fi and Wi-MAX technologies. 

Now, therefore, a traditional antitrust analysis would take a look 

at what are existing market shares, what is the ability, you know, 

of others to enter the market, and what barriers are there to enter 

the market. So I support——

Mr. ISSA. And I’ll follow up on that using, if you will, telcos and 

cable providers. If we—and this would be Commerce Committee, 

not Judiciary Committee, I have to be sensitive to. But if we redefined that you were regulated for the last mile, you had to put a 

green box in, and everybody could have access from there and put 

T-3 lines in and compete so that you were only selling a very regulated last hook-up to the house, then would you—you know, to be 

honest, would you see that, in fact, that isn’t the way that you 

have—I mean, to have competition, you would have to essentially 

recognize that the two wires to leading to the house are the absolutely best way to deliver 8 MP or higher data rates and that in 

the current technology that’s the only way to deliver that kind of 

bandwidth because you’re the only ones, the telephone company or 

the cable company are the only ones that have the right to tear up 

the streets to get to my house, and certainly virtually the only ones 

in most communities to get to a mile away from my house. You 

don’t see that? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, Congressman, there are—no, I don’t see 

that because——

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Mr. Wu, do you see that? 

Mr. WU. I do see that. You know, the argument—I do see that, 

and the argument that isn’t—market power isn’t a duopoly problem 

is like saying there wasn’t a Standard Oil monopoly because they 

would have invented solar power one day or something. 

All these things, wireless, you know, they exist in these——

Mr. ISSA. Or you could have hauled your own oil in from Venezuela. 

Mr. WU. Right. You know, and there was always the potential if 

someone really wanted to, they, you know, could have invented—

or taken a bicycle or something. I mean, these are sort of potential 

technologies that may one day be more competitive, but I think 

you’re exactly right. This is a classic duopoly, a classic antitrust 

problem, and there are ways that a monopolist can extract extra 

rents at the cost of the entire economy. And it’s the duty of Congress to make sure that doesn’t happen and preserve competition. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Misener, I’d like to hear your comments. I’d also 

like to tee up another ‘‘what if.’’ What if every product that you 

made was tied in with Microsoft in their package? Would you say 

that—and if, in fact, they charged a premium if you wanted to be 

able to access your product using their operating system, would you 

have a problem with that even though Linux is around? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes. I think that was the right answer. More to 

the point, on the duopoly here, the switching costs are extraordinarily high. When we look at search engines, the switching cost 

is a click of your finger. You want to go from ask.com to Google.com 

to Yahoo! to MSN, A9—put in a plug for Amazon’s. All these search 

engines are——

Mr. ISSA. Duly noted. 

78

Mr. MISENER. —a click away. Okay? A click away. To switch between cable and telco broadband is huge. You’ve got long-term contracts. You’ve got truck rolls, equipment changes. These sorts of 

things present very high barriers just switching among them. So 

consumers don’t have the sorts of choices that they have of search 

engines in the broadband Internet access world. It just is—it simply is not the case. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. CANNON. You’re welcome. 

The gentleman’s time having expired, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also 

thank you and the Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Member for holding these hearings and thank all our witnesses. 

I’ve been listening for some time, and one thing I think we can 

all agree on, which is that we all have—clearly the witnesses have 

different definitions of what it is to block, impair, and degrade. And 

I am just trying to understand sort of the universe we’re operating 

in here. 

I do think that we have to distinguish between future potential 

and the reality today. The reality today based on the statistics is 

we have an effective duopoly if it’s true that 90 percent of the pipes 

essentially are through cable and telecom. Clearly, there’s potential 

in the future for a build-out of a greater network, but in terms of 

the regulatory scheme we have in place, we have to deal with the 

reality that’s in place today. 

But I would like to ask the witnesses to respond to issues I understand Mr. McCormick raising here, which is that we have—we 

don’t have enough, you know, broadband, we don’t have enough 

bandwidth today to accommodate all the substance we want to put 

on the content that we want to put on the network, especially as 

we’re talking about video on demand and those kind of services. So 

if you have a pipeline and you have already more traffic that is 

crowding that pipeline, I don’t understand the technology completely, but does that mean that if you don’t somehow make choices 

between the different content providers, that everybody’s service is 

going to be somehow degraded. 

I mean, the question I have is there seems to be consensus that 

we have limitations on the size of the pipe——

Mr. COMSTOCK. Well, I think that’s——

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. —and then the question is, if that’s true, somehow someone is going to either be left out or degraded. And while 

we don’t want people to sort of pay more to play and get preference, there is somebody, according to this analysis I’ve seen, that 

is being left out; it’s just that we’re not being clear as to how 

they’re being left out. If you could all respond to that. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. I think that’s where we might disagree a little 

bit. The reality is we have two broadband networks that run by 

everybody’s home today, and as I said, in the business market it’s 

limited to one. But there’s a lot of capacity out there. Right now, 

in the case of cable, they choose to use the bulk of it for their exclusionary video programming, and a lot of this is about protecting 

79

that market share. The Bell Companies would also like to protect 

market share in video by tying video content to transmission. 

If you look at what Verizon is doing to the home today, when 

they run their FIOS network fiber to your home using commercial 

technology, there’s a minimum of a gigabit coming into that. Yet 

they’ve already filed papers at the FCC saying we’re going to take 

the bulk of that and reserve it for our cable service; then we’re 

going to take another big chunk of it and reserve it for our private 

network, the extra—the pay extra network; and then we’ll reserve 

this tiny little bit for the public Internet. 

And the problem that we have in the United States is we’ve set 

up incentives for the network operator to restrict transmission capacity in order to protect their core services, particularly video. 

And so if you allow competitors to get access to this network, as 

it going on in Europe today, for example, you’ll suddenly find that 

you can get 25-megabit-a-second DSL service. Cavalier Telephone, 

one of COMPTEL’s members, is doing that in Richmond today. If 

we allowed more people access to the network, innovators would 

come along and solve a lot of our transmission problems and expand the bandwidth available. 

If you took the capacity that’s being reserved for video today and 

made that available to the end user for purchase, and they could 

freely buy it, they would have unlimited choice of video content 

providers. They could go directly to Disney, directly to ABC. That’s 

the nightmare that the cable industry fears and the Bell Companies also fear. They want to reserve that capacity for their exclusive content as a means of leveraging their transmission monopoly 

into other services. 

Mr. WU. Congressman Van Hollen, if I could just try and address 

your question directly, it is true that for the average broadband 

connection there is, let’s say, one or two megs, a certain amount 

of capacity there. The fundamental question we’re getting at is who 

gets to decide how that capacity is used. The way the Internet is 

today, primarily it is the consumer who is deciding. The consumer, 

if they try to download a movie that they don’t have enough bandwidth for, the movie will not function properly. If you have 30 different things running at once, if you are, you know, reading your 

e-mail, watching movies, and do everything at once, your bandwidth will begin to degrade. 

But the critical choice is whether consumers should get to decide 

how their bandwidth is used or whether the gatekeepers, the 

duopolists, are going to decide how that bandwidth is used and 

charge extra to the different companies. 

My submission is that consumer choice serves you better—the 

economy better and is essential to the free market system, and 

that’s why these kind of constraints are something that consumers 

should solve for themselves. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. 

Mr. McCormick, if you could respond, please, to both statements 

that were made, I’d appreciate it. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. As I stated in my testimony, one visionary 

technologist recently compared the Internet to a Los Angeles freeway. He said, ‘‘Traffic jams happen. The more we upload and 

download and share, standard definition video, high definition 

80

video, home movies, and multiple megabit photos, the more bandwidth we consumer. The more PCs and servers we back up online, 

the more bandwidth we consume. The more bandwidth we consume, the more Internet traffic jams we have. The more Internet 

traffic jams we have, the worse our Internet applications perform.’’

Now, not to oversimplify, but there are two parts to the network. 

One is the part that goes from the network up to the consumer’s 

house. That’s really the amount of bandwidth you’re buying to access the Internet network. We’re saying we’re not going to block, 

impair, or degrade; whatever the consumer buys, that’s how much 

capacity they’re going to have to download their applications. 

But the other part of the network is this network that’s carrying 

everything. And as consumers begin to look to obtain more stuff, 

some consumers may be buying truckloads of material from Amazon.com. So the issue becomes, you know, how do we expand? The 

network has to be expandable and scalable, and who pays to expand and to scale that network? 

If you go to Land’s End today and you want to buy five truckloads of clothes, you know, the average consumer sitting in the 

house next door to you doesn’t have to pay for that. You’re paying 

Land’s End, and Land’s End pays the provider of the service. 

So, similarly, we think that the network of the future ought to 

operate the same way. It should not be spread across consumers 

who aren’t asking for all those applications. It ought to be the consumers that want to make use of it that are paying for it and that 

they’re going to be in a financial arrangement with these companies. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. All right. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I mean, I 

don’t know if there’s a response to that, but as I understand it, let’s 

say I’m, you know, a moderate user or a limited user of the Internet and I use it for certain purposes. I guess the question is: If I’m 

on the sort of low user end of the Internet, should I be also paying 

for the costs of building out the major pipelines on the Internet because everybody else wants to have a much higher usage? I mean, 

these are rough analogies. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. That is the analogy. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It would be useful for me to get a response 

from the others very quickly, if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. That is the thing, but he’s basically reversed it. 

It is about the last mile to your home. There is so much capacity 

in the backbone today. There are tons of companies that have unlit 

fiber. This is not an issue of network congestion in the backbone—

unless, of course, you’re talking about solely on the AT&T backbone 

or solely on the Verizon backbone, which they own and control. But 

nobody is asking consumers to pay for the expansion of that backbone. That is being paid for by the big companies that use it. It’s 

the last-mile connection that they’re using to make you drink 

through a straw when you wanted to pay for a much bigger straw, 

and that’s the issue. I think Mr. Wu said it correctly. It’s who controls this. Does the user control the bandwidth or does the network 

operator? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. 

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman yields back. 

81

Mr. Goodlatte, the gentleman from Virginia, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement I’d ask be made a 

part of the record. 

Mr. CANNON. It’s already been agreed to by unanimous consent. 

I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I’d like to direct a follow-up question to Mr. 

McCormick’s comments and Mr. Comstock’s comments to Mr. 

Misener and ask you how you’d respond to Mr. McCormick’s arguments that network providers need to find a way to continue to pay 

for the increased bandwidth that will be necessary to ensure that 

we don’t counter those Internet traffic jams that he and others 

have described as more and more content is made available to providers. And how would you recommend that the network providers 

pay for the increased capacity they need to build? 

Mr. MISENER. Well, as they’re doing today, Mr. Goodlatte. The 

FCC’s biennial report on the deployment of broadband services to 

American consumers came out earlier this month, the most recent 

one, and it showed two things. We’ve been talking about one of 

them, which is the strong and growing duopoly power of the cable 

and telco network operators. But something else it shows is the 

rapid deployment of broadband lines to American consumers, which 

is a great thing. I think we’d all agree that it is. But it’s being deployed in a circumstance where many of the parties actually deploying the lines are precluded from the source of discrimination 

that they have announced that they intend to engage in. Some are 

precluded by their merger conditions. AT&T is one; Verizon is another. 

So the fact of the matter is that lines are being deployed today. 

Investment is being made today, even with these nondiscrimination 

merger conditions imposed upon the companies. 

We are fully in favor of consumer tiering, as has been suggested. 

The person who sends the occasional e-mail should not have to pay 

as much as someone who games 24/7. That certainly isn’t the case. 

What we oppose is what has been called Whitacre tiering, which 

is where the network operators take their market power over the 

network itself and extend it to market power over the content. 

They essentially extort monopoly rents from content providers who 

have no other way to get to consumers——

Mr. GOODLATTE. I understand that. You’re moving away from my 

question, though, which is: How do they pay for it in the future? 

Mr. MISENER. Well, they’re continuing to pay for it. I mean, 

they’ve already demonstrated that they’re paying for it. How they 

will pay for it in the future is——

Mr. GOODLATTE. And you think that——

Mr. MISENER. —continue to pay——

Mr. GOODLATTE. —current revenues are sufficient to continue the 

kind of rapid build-out that’s needed? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes. It’s a demonstrated fact, yes, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. Well, let me ask Mr. McCormick a 

question then. In the future, is it feasible that the Internet could 

become the ultimate video programming arena and that each 

website could have programming similar to a current television staVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
82

tion or channel, like the Discovery Channel’s website, it could offer 

all of its programs via its website? Isn’t it a natural instinct for 

cable companies and now the telephone companies to want to protect their investments in their closed video programming services 

by resisting such a move to a potentially open Internet video programming model? Are you aware of any telecom companies in your 

association or any companies that have built into their contracts 

with content providers any requirements that content providers not 

offer their video programs on their websites? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. I’m not aware of any contractual provisions like 

that. I would go back to the FCC principles, which say we will not 

block, impair, or degrade access to any website, that consumers 

would have the ability to access any website they want. And I 

think that it—this is going on right now. I mean, if I want to access 

Movielink or if I want to access Starz, I can do that right now and 

pay Starz $30 a month, and I can download movies. Disney is going 

to begin to offer Web-based services. But these companies are coming to us, companies like Disney and others, and they’re talking to 

us about building into our networks certain applications that will 

enhance their services. I don’t think that this is any different than 

what has been historically done with our networks where we have 

offered to people the ability to have in the network virtual private 

network and enhanced services that offer increased security and 

privacy and we build that into the network and let the companies 

bear the cost of that rather than having the consumers across the 

board bear that cost. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me ask the other panelists if they want to 

respond, particularly Mr. Misener, to the comment made earlier by 

Mr. McCormick that the legislation that may be coming forth from 

the Energy and Commerce Committee contains language that 

would effectively codify the FCC’s comments regarding having sufficient authority to prevent downgrading. 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, Mr. Goodlatte, actually it ties the hands of 

the agency by precluding them from rulemaking in this area. It’s 

very unfortunate. The Commission currently has the authority to 

fully enforce using their rulemaking and adjudicatory powers the 

policy statement that they issued last August. What the Energy 

and Commerce bill would do, however, is actually remove the rulemaking authority from the Commission over those—over that area. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I wonder if the other—Mr. Comstock? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Yeah, I was just going to point out that, again, 

we don’t have to speculate about some of the behavior, and I appreciate your point about the cable. You know, the reality is in the 10 

years since the 1996 act, the cable companies have been free to 

enter the phone and data market, and people have been free to 

enter the video market. And the behavior of the cable companies, 

once the FCC decided not to treat them as common carriers, demonstrates exactly what were concerned about. They ran the ISPs 

out of business by refusing them access to their network and by 

bundling their broadband service with their ISP. 

So, I mean, this is natural financial behavior. I mean, it’s been 

seen over and over and over again. And so the concern that somehow imposing some of these conditions would result in lost investment isn’t borne out in other parts of the world. Europe is imposing 

83

these very same open access requirements that we had in the 1996 

act, and people are investing. And the other point is that empirically the evidence is strong that without some kind of behavior constraints, these network operators will use their market power to 

protect their core services. 

So I think that, you know, we have demonstrated over and over 

again that this is a problem, and what you’re hearing from Mr. 

McCormick is just more promises to listen to us once again, and 

don’t worry, we’ll take care of it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you agree with Mr. Misener that the language that is being proposed in the Energy and Commerce markup 

is counterproductive? I take it that’s what your position is. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. It is counterproductive and the only qualification 

I would make on Mr. Misener’s statement is I’m not sure that the 

FCC does, in fact, have any authority now that they’ve declared 

them non-common carriers to enforce those principles. They are 

principles that follow along the line of common carriage, and it’s 

not clear that the FCC’s title I authority would be adequate. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. McCormick, do you want to respond? And 

also, do you want to respond to Mr. Misener’s answer to my first 

question regarding how you pay for all this? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yeah, I would. First, with regard to Mr. 

Misener and the House—we’d be happy to see that provision drop 

out of the House bill. We think that the FCC has sufficient authority today. We don’t think that there’s a need for the House to move 

forward and codify it. At the same time——

Mr. GOODLATTE. I found something you all agree on. We could 

agree to drop——

Mr. COMSTOCK. You’d have to make it stronger. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Secondly, I think one of the reasons that 

there’s such difficulty here is that the whole debate is ‘‘what if.’’ 

You know, what if the Bell Companies do this? What if the cable 

companies do this? There’s no problem out there right now. There’s 

no problem that can be cited that the Congress needs to deal with 

or that even the FCC needs to deal with. The Chairman of the FCC 

has said if a problem comes along, I’ve got sufficient authority to 

deal with it. But until such time as a problem develops, let’s let the 

marketplace work. 

I had begun my testimony today by saying that the net neutrality debate under these FCC principles does, in fact, address not 

just service providers but content providers, and that this Committee did look at screen bias in connection with the original 

search engines, which were the airline computer reservation systems. And I would like to insert for the record this search on 

Google with regard to where you buy books, and the first one that 

comes up is Amazon.com as a sponsored link—a sponsored link 

here, a sponsored link over here, too. But for the average consumer, that screen bias is pursuant to a toll that is paid to Google 

by Amazon.com to list Amazon.com as the very first result. It says 

so right here, ‘‘Sponsored link.’’

So I would argue that because—there’s not a real problem out 

there right now because the marketplace is exploring this new era 

of the Internet and companies are beginning to jockey for how to 

make the right investments, how to find the market. 

84

I would go with what John Chambers of Cisco said, which is now 

is not the time to legislate. Now is not the time to regulate in this 

area. First, do no harm. Let’s wait and see if a problem develops 

and then address it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if I might have leave to allow 

Mr. Wu to respond to that, I would——

Mr. CANNON. First of all, let me suggest that—or ask unanimous 

consent that the document you’ve indicated from Google, the 

Google search, be admitted to the record. 

And without objection, Mr. Wu, you are recognized to respond. 

Mr. WU. Yeah, I think that Mr. McCormick is right that 2 or 3 

years ago there wasn’t a problem. The reason that this hearing is 

being held, the reason that there’s so much popular attention, the 

reason the blogosphere is alarmed, the reason that gun groups, the 

reason that conservative bloggers, libertarian bloggers, liberal 

bloggers are all getting into this is because they’ve seen the plans 

of AT&T and Verizon. And, you know, Mr. McCormick uses words 

like ‘‘VPN,’’ virtual private network, which are designed to sound 

very low key, but they’re simply a priority lane for selected companies. That’s why we have a problem now, is we have a plan for rollouts of networks that are discriminatory, and that’s a change. 

As for this question of, you know, who will build the networks, 

I think the network neutrality issue is almost a side issue to that 

question. There is marginally more profit that may be made from 

this priority lane approach, from this degradation approach, which 

is the same thing, which is why the Bells are interested in it. But 

the truth is that the neutral and open Internet has floated all 

boats. That is to say, these companies are making more money 

than they ever have with the neutral network. And so while there’s 

a possibility of marginally more profit, what the Committee has to 

really understand is the trade-off. The trade-off is distortion of 

competition. I said this already about the refrigerator. We’re, you 

know, starting to repeat ourselves. But there is a trade-off from 

this priority approach. There are other ways for them to make 

money that are less distortionary, less discriminatory. What the 

Government needs to do is to urge the less distortion, least discriminatory way——

Mr. GOODLATTE. In that regard, how would you respond to his 

analogy with regard to Google and Amazon? 

Mr. WU. You mean that Google—you know, first of all, I mean, 

Zoe Lofgren, Congresswoman Lofgren pointed this out. Google actually does run a neutral search. Google search results are neutral. 

They have advertisements. And what he’s referring to is the fact 

that there are advertisements on the Google website, which he is 

calling a priority lane. And I think it’s a confusing issue. I think 

it confuses the issue. We’ve already said over and over again that—

we’ve already said over and over again that the search engine is 

a competitive market. A9 is a pretty good search engine. I’m thinking of switching myself. It’s a completely different type of market, 

and the analogy is just confusing. It’s just this ‘‘Blame Google’’ approach. You know, maybe because Google is in China or something 

we can get some traction on this. It’s a completely different issue. 

No one thinks the competitive conditions—no economist could come 

up here and say that competitive conditions for the search engine 

85

market are anything like the access market. So I don’t think it’s 

even a good use of the Committee’s time to think about it or talk 

about it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all the panelists. It was great. 

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for purposes of a 

unanimous consent request. 

Mr. CONYERS. I want to insert into the record the Chair’s of the 

Federal Trade Commission’s letter to myself and Chairman Sensenbrenner dated March 14. 

Mr. CANNON. Without objection, so ordered. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. This has been a very interesting discussion, and it seems to 

me we need to put a lot more time in on understanding what is 

taking place with the Internet. 

I have some very simple and direct questions I’d like to ask. Is 

there a capacity problem with DSL, broadband, and cable? 

Mr. COMSTOCK. I think it depends on how you define that. The 

issue today is that because increasingly competitors cannot get access to the infrastructure, you’re seeing a degradation, a slowing 

down of the innovation that goes on that’s led to it. As I mentioned, 

Cavalier Telephone down in Richmond, Virginia, is using DSL circuits to provide voice, video, and data. They’re doing that on TV. 

If you look at in Europe today, DSL is widely used to do IPTV. So 

it can be done, and that innovation occurs when you unbundle the 

network. 

If you look on the cable side, there is far less innovation going 

on because they’ve got an incentive not to expand the capacity too 

quickly or people might provide video over it. 

So I think that the infrastructure is there, broadband deployment is there. The issue broadband penetration, which means you 

need to bring down the price, and the way you bring down the price 

is by having competition. And that’s why Americans are paying so 

much more today for broadband than people are in other parts of 

the world, and that’s why we’re dropping in the OECD statistics. 

It’s not broadband deployment we’re dropping in. It’s broadband 

penetration that we’re dropping in, which is a function of people 

buying the service. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Misener, you said when there was some discussion about charging and paying, you say, ‘‘Well, we do pay.’’ Would 

you explain? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, ma’am. Companies, content companies like 

Amazon.com, have large servers in which we—servers and content 

in which we’ve invested billions of dollars of capital. And to connect 

those servers to the Internet backbone, we have contracts with 

many companies, including many of Mr. McCormick’s members, in 

which we pay millions of dollars a year just to connect our content 

to the Internet. 

Ms. WATERS. However, that does not give you any priority, just 

the connection. Is that right? 

Mr. MISENER. That’s correct. 

86

Ms. WATERS. I’d like also again for you to explain why the consumer is being squeezed and why there’s less access or potentially 

less access for the average consumer, small consumers, not the big 

guys? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, Ms. Waters. Thank you. It’s because there are 

only two available service providers. Right now and for the foreseeable future, there will be this duopoly of only cable and telephone 

companies providing broadband Internet access to American residential consumers. We see the same thing overseas as well, in fact, 

and one of the things that I think has come out in this hearing is 

that not only is there this strong potential—in fact, announced intentions of the network operators in America to try to extract monopoly rents from American Internet companies, we’re actually seeing announcements from foreign Internet companies. In my testimony, there’s some quotes from the CEO of Deutsche Telekom. He 

intends to go after Google, eBay, Yahoo!, and Amazon. Those were 

the companies he named. Certainly no German companies were on 

that list. 

American Internet companies are world-leading, and so foreign 

carriers are going to follow the example here in America and try 

to extract the same sorts of rents except it won’t be foreign Internet 

companies that they’re getting it from. It’ll be American Internet 

companies. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. I guess it would Mr. McCormick, will 

you counter the argument that consumers are being squeezed, that 

they will have less access and they will basically be competing for 

space with the huge companies that can afford to pay, like Disney? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. I guess I’m still—I can’t even comprehend how 

the consumer is going to get squeezed. The FCC has said that there 

are four principles: consumers are entitled to access lawful Internet 

content of their choice; consumers are entitled to run applications 

and use services of their choice subject to the needs of law enforcement; customers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices 

that do not harm networks. In the case of those who are offering 

voice over Internet protocol services, the FCC has already shown 

that if consumers are in any way blocked or impaired from being 

able to use the VOIP provider of their choice, that the FCC will act. 

The Chairman of the FCC has said that he believes he continues 

to have legal authority in that regard. 

So I don’t know how the consumer is going to get squeezed. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. Well, thank you. 

Do you know how, Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. I do, and it comes from—it comes from the problem of 

network stagnation; that is to say, if we have a situation, if we 

move towards—which is the plan of the Bells, to move toward a 

discriminatory Internet, consumers—the applications which consumers may prefer may not be the ones that run best. I’ll turn it 

back to the electric network. You know, let’s say you really prefer 

General Electric products over Samsung. But you go out and buy 

and General Electric’s refrigerator just doesn’t operate as well. 

That is, the applications the consumers like best, whatever their 

idiosyncratic preferences may be, may not work as well on the network, and that’s the threat—that’s the short-term threat to consumers. The long-term threat is that when competition on the netVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
87

work becomes a question of who has the best connections with the 

gatekeepers, you no longer have the kind of innovative market 

which has been good for consumers. Consumers every year can look 

forward to new search engines, for better or for worse—I keep talking about A9, have these strange ways you can search block by 

block. There’s constant arrival of new innovations in Internet 

space, and that is what’s at threat. That’s something that’s very 

important for consumers, very good for the national economy. And 

that’s what’s at threat, the innovative dynamic nature. That’s the 

trade-off of allowing discrimination. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. Mr. McCormick, I would take it you 

would just flatly disagree with Mr. Wu. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, I would flatly disagree. I mean, let’s 

take—let’s take his refrigerator example and let’s say that you’ve 

got some refrigerator that you can now make telephone calls on 

and watch TV on and maybe Samsung will come up with that kind 

of refrigerator. What the FCC principles say is that the consumer 

has the right to attach that device to the network and that the network operator will in no way block, impair, or degrade service to 

that Samsung refrigerator that you can watch TV and get telephone calls over. So with those——

Ms. WATERS. So you’re basically saying electricity is electricity, 

that if you have access to it, you can buy as much as you need or 

want, but that electricity works well for everybody. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. It works well very everybody. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if I know 

any more than I knew before I came in here about this argument, 

but it has been interesting. Thank you. 

Mr. CANNON. As long as your heart is pure, it will work. The 

Chair would ask unanimous consent to include in the record a document by John Windhausen, Jr., dated February 6, 2006, ‘‘Good 

Fences Make Bad Broadband.’’ Without objection, so ordered. 

The Chair would ask unanimous consent that he be allowed an 

additional 5 minutes to ask questions of the witnesses without 

going into a second round. Without objection, so ordered. 

I really do this because I’d actually like to flesh out the record 

a little bit. And, Mr. Misener, you talked about the Commerce bill, 

which I take it you’re somewhat familiar with. In your view, what 

would happen to antitrust enforcement if the Commerce bill is 

passed? 

Mr. MISENER. Mr. Chairman, I’m no expert on antitrust, but I 

am concerned that if that were to be passed, then the holding in 

Trinko might actually prevent antitrust enforcement in this area. 

We certainly would like to see bright-line rules adopted, however 

they’re adopted and however they’re enforced, to be in place and 

advanced so that we’re not engaged in long, spread-out litigation 

post hoc. 

My company is all of 11 years old. Seven years of an antitrust 

case don’t get us very far, especially in this circumstance where 

there is such an obvious clear and present danger that is, as I say, 

eminently avoidable by bright-line rules in advance. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I might comment, I 

think the concern specifically with the Commerce bill is, as drafted, 

it appears to provide exclusive authority to the FCC and then limit 

88

that authority specifically to these wonderful principles that Mr. 

McCormick keeps referencing, which are that—they’re principles, 

they’re very vague, and there’s no rulemaking authority. 

So I think the concern would be that it might be interpreted, particularly in light of Trinko, to have preempted antitrust enforcement, and that’s a major concern. You know, these entities, particularly the Bell Companies, are claiming protection under the 

filed rate doctrine. There’s issues having to do with whether or not 

I’m directly buying service from them, what if I’m an indirect purchaser, with respect to the antitrust laws that we’d need clarification on. And I think having that Commerce Committee language 

that says the FCC has exclusive authority to deal with these matters might pose some problems as well. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I’m holding the document, the proposed 

bill, the legislation in front of me, and section 3 talks about this 

adjudicative authority, which you have quoted precisely. Mr. 

McCormick, would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes. I’m sure that if there is a concern that 

that language would have any negative impact on antitrust enforcement, we could probably reach an agreement among the three 

of us to let it drop out and let the antitrust laws govern. I mean, 

we strongly believe that it’s a marketplace today that should be 

governed like the rest of the American marketplace, and it ought 

to be governed by the Nation’s antitrust laws, and it shouldn’t be 

governed by continued regulation. So if that language in that bill 

is of a concern to these constituents, we could probably reach an 

agreement in that regard. 

Mr. CANNON. So let me just take it a step further. Based on what 

you’re saying, would your organization support codifying those 

principles in antitrust law? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. No. We believe that the antitrust laws are very 

explicit with regard to illegal restraints of trade and anticompetitive behavior, that the antitrust departments and agencies that are 

overseen by this Committee—the Federal Trade Commission, the 

Department of Justice—are very aggressive in their enforcement. 

And as Mr. Issa said earlier, we believe that traditional antitrust 

analysis ought to be the analysis that’s applied to this marketplace. 

Mr. CANNON. Are you familiar with the hearing the full Committee had on Trinko sometime ago? 

Mr. MCCORMICK. I’m aware of it. I’m not familiar with it. 

Mr. CANNON. The industry, the people that you represent today, 

had representatives here who testified that we really didn’t need 

antitrust oversight. I take it you’re now saying something different 

from that. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Well, I think what the representatives said is 

that there should not—you shouldn’t be subject to double jeopardy. 

You shouldn’t have a belt-and-suspenders approach. There 

shouldn’t be enforcement at the FCC and then once you follow the 

dictates of the FCC you should be subject to a separate level of enforcement on the antitrust laws, so choose. And I think that what 

I’m saying today is that if there’s concern that this language as applied to broadband would create a situation where the antitrust 

laws would not apply, then let’s not do belt-and-suspenders. Let’s 

89

let the antitrust laws govern this segment of the industry, just like 

they govern every other segment of the American marketplace. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chairman, if I just might, I think it’s important to note that when the antitrust action that broke up AT&T 

was taken, the common—the Communications Act applied to AT&T 

just as well. So the issue that really exists here is that you have 

an industry that has been very successful in manipulating the 

arms of Government, and what they keep doing is saying, well, 

that guy’s regulating me over here so you don’t need to worry over 

here. And then when you flip it around, they say the reverse. 

And so if antitrust law is going to be the primary tool—and I 

think the FTC letter that you entered in the record illustrates this, 

that now that there’s no longer a common carrier obligation, the 

FTC may well be the primary law enforcement agency. I think it 

is essential for the American economy and our position in global 

competitiveness to have a clear set of rules spelled out with respect 

to the operation of broadband networks in this country, because 

communications is an essential service that we all need today if 

we’re going to stay competitive. So we need something specific. As 

Mr. Misener said, 7 years of an antitrust suit isn’t going to get 

Amazon off the ground, if that’s what they’re trying to do. 

Mr. MISENER. Mr. Chairman, if I just may very quickly. 

Mr. CANNON. Please. 

Mr. MISENER. It may be restating the obvious, but consumers 

don’t care. They don’t care how this is accomplished. They just 

want to ensure that their longstanding Internet freedoms are preserved. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. 

Mr. Wu, did you want to make a comment, please? 

Mr. WU. I agree with that. This is an issue about the Nation’s 

economy and about innovation and the future of this country. And 

richer countries have better neutral infrastructures; poorer countries don’t. This is—we risk getting lost in this battle as to whether 

it should be antitrust or whether it should be telecom law or the 

FCC. The question—the basic principle is that the engine of the 

economy has been the applications layer of the Internet, and this 

incredibly well-functioning market on top of the Internet’s infrastructure. 

What is needed is minimum action to prevent spillovers from the 

uncompetitive part of this network from distorting the competitive 

and highly functioning part of this network, the application side, 

and that’s important to this country’s future and to its economic 

health. And it doesn’t matter how you do it. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I would like to thank all of you for 

being with us today——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for an inquiry, 

please? 

Mr. CANNON. Certainly. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I know that you had the last 5 minutes without having a second round, but can I inquire to you, which would 

then allow the panelists, the very respected individuals, to answer 

the question and, that is, if I may give the question, that they may 

ask—answer in writing——

Mr. CANNON. Without objection. 

90

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be jumping for joy if they could answer today, but I will yield to that. We have heard a jangling of 

agencies—FTC, FCC, and the Department of Justice—all around 

the question of what would be a better regulatory structure for the 

consumer. I’d be interested in hearing from each of them as to 

what would be the better regulatory structure—to re-engage the 

FCC, to put the anchor in the FTC, or whether or not strictly 

under the Department of Justice, particularly as it relates to the 

antitrust law. I’d appreciate their response in writing, Mr. Chairman, if I could. 

Mr. CANNON. Just a clarification. Would you like them to try and 

address that now and avoid writing, or would you like——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, only at your kind indulgence 

would I be grateful if they could. 

Mr. CANNON. I would prefer leaving them without the burden, 

and then you can follow up with——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I’d be happy to have them answer. I’d 

be willing to hear their answer on this point. 

Mr. CANNON. Why don’t we go, Mr. Misener, from you down 

the——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Jackson Lee. 

We certainly would prefer any a priori regulation that communicates directly to the network operators and to American consumers what the rules of the road are. So we’re looking for brightline rules of the road. 

It seems to me that since these historically have resided at the 

FCC, that that likely is the best place to keep them. But ultimately, again, consumers don’t and need not care from whence 

Government rules of the road arise but, rather, that they exist and 

they do protect these longstanding consumer freedoms. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. COMSTOCK. I would generally agree. I mean, we had a very 

effective common carrier regime, and I think the problem that’s 

arisen—and I would note we had a common carrier regime backed 

up by antitrust enforcement, and maybe not by the FTC but still 

by the Department of Justice. And I think that was a great model. 

I think the problem is then that we’ve got an agency that, notwithstanding fairly clear instructions from the Congress in the 

1996 act, has chosen to abandon those responsibilities. And so I 

would say the FCC if the FCC is actually going to carry out the 

law, but in the absence of that—and that’s, I think, a lot of the reason we’re here—then we’ve got to find another solution. And, unfortunately, the Department of Justice has also abdicated in their recent approval of the mergers. You know, one industry swallowed 

the other major competitors whole, and they didn’t even blink. So 

I’m not sure what happened to competition analysis, but, you 

know, Mr. McCormick keeps saying standard antitrust analysis. 

Well, there appears to be none. So if it’s not going to be either of 

those two, I’d certainly vote for the FTC. But, again, I think that’s 

only going to happen—they’re now an ad hoc enforcement agency, 

and you can’t have something run that way. You’ve got to have, as 

Mr. Misener said, the rules set out up front and very clearly stated. 

And if that’s going to happen, then it’s imperative for this ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
91

mittee, the Congress as a whole, to adopt clear rules with respect 

to how we’re going to deal with these networks. Those rules should 

make sure you have service upon reasonable request, nondiscrimination, interconnection, attachment of devices—essentially 

the same things that you have under common carriage because 

that’s the framework upon which this massively successful Internet 

has been built. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCORMICK. Congresswoman, today there exists no problem. 

The FCC has set forth a series of principles and has said that if 

a problem develops, it has the authority to enforce. We support 

that. 

Recently, you asked the Federal Trade Commission if the Federal 

Trade Commission believed that it had authority to address anticompetitive behavior, and the Federal Trade Commission responded that it believed that it did have authority, sufficient authority to address any anticompetitive behavior that could result. 

That we support. We think that the current environment is one 

where the Government has clearly articulated a policy and has 

available to it the tools it needs to address any problems should 

problems arise. 

That having been said, we don’t think there needs to be new authority created. We think that the existing antitrust laws are sufficiently definite with regard to illegal restraints of trade, attempts 

to monopolize, and anticompetitive behavior for the Government to 

have available to it whatever remedies need to be available should 

a problem develop. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Professor? 

Mr. WU. Yeah, I’d just make one point. These matters have often 

ended up at the FCC, and part of the problem with that is what 

are really issues of national economics and macroeconomic policy 

end up always being seen as these kind of weird, geeky telecom 

issues, like a battle at the Star Trek Convention or something. And 

part of the reason for moving the authority, arguably, outside the 

FCC is that it will be easier to recognize and understand that these 

are straightforward antitrust issues. And I think this is part of 

what, you know, the Committee is here today to understand. And 

so these are issues that affect the entire country and that are 

straightforward, familiar anything problems that involve industries 

and involve consumers. 

So I think there’s a good argument from trying to take this away 

from this tiny, strange world of telecom policy and into the broader 

questions of national economic policy, which are just moving things 

away from the FCC. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have 

our work cut out for us, but we have had an expansive hearing. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. CANNON. The Chair’s time having expired, let me just thank 

the panel for being here today. This has been among the most 

lucid, engaging of all hearings I’ve been to, certainly of those that 

I’ve chaired. 

Thank you, and the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the task force was adjourned.] 

(93)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY

I want to thank the Chairman for asserting our jurisdiction in this matter. Contrary to what our friends in the Commerce Committee may think, it is the Judiciary 

Committee that has jurisdiction over issues that affect the state of competition in 

the telecommunications industry. 

When it comes to the Internet, we should proceed cautiously. Unless we have documented instances of a problem, I do not believe the Congress should regulate. I 

have consistently taken this position. In the area of Internet taxation, I have always 

sided with those who believe we should oppose multiple and discriminatory taxes 

on the Internet and need a moratorium on those taxes. In the area of campaign finance regulation of blogs and other Internet communications, I was one of the first 

in Congress to tell the Federal Election Commission to go slow. 

That said, when we do see evidence of a problem, Congress has a duty to act. In 

some instances, Congress must provide the rules of the road to ensure competition, 

fairness, and sound public policy. 

While I remain open on the issue of network neutrality, I have become more and 

more concerned that if Congress does nothing, we could be heading in a direction 

where those who pay can play, and those who don’t are simply out of luck. 

For example, some telecom companies have indicated that they do not intend to 

let companies like Google and Yahoo—or the next generations of Internet entrepreneurs—use their pipes without significant payments. Verizon’s CEO Ivan 

Seidenberg said he would not let these companies ‘‘sit on our network and chew up 

our capacity.’’ AT&T’s Ed Whitacre said ‘‘I ain’t going to let them do that.’’

The network operators say they have a right to charge companies for enhanced 

services. The content companies and consumers say the Internet should be open to 

all, regardless of their ability to pay. 

Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone and everything. This is also a key factor in one of the fastest growing areas of our economy—

the Internet. 

Whatever Congress does, it must protect these aspects of the Internet. One option 

would be to legislate in the most general way possible, offering only guidelines or 

principles and punting to the FCC to figure out how or whether to enforce them. 

I think that approach is not responsible. I think Congress has a duty to do more. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I hope we can have a 

dialogue about how best to ensure and protect the Internet on which we have come 

to rely. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. 

The Internet continues to be an engine that empowers our citizens and our economy. New and exciting products and services continue to emerge that enhance the 

quality of life of our citizens and increase the efficiency of businesses. 

Part of the reason why the Internet is such a creative forum for new ideas is that 

there are very few barriers to using the Internet to deliver products, information 

and services. Startups such as Google, ebay and many others have sprung up and 

prospered because they had the same access to consumers via the Internet that 

other, larger and established entities had. 

94

In the 106th Congress, I introduced legislation, along with Congressman Rick 

Boucher, to ensure competition in the broadband access and services market. Specifically, this legislation amended the antitrust laws to prohibit anti-competitive behavior so that the Internet would remain open to fair competition, free from government regulation, and accessible to American consumers. 

I believe that the Internet should remain open and that network operators should 

not be able to pick and choose who wins and loses in the Internet marketplace. At 

the same time network operators must be able to manage their networks in a way 

that allows them to build more capacity so that they can provide more consumers 

with the Internet sites that continue to grow in size and complexity. 

In time, as competition in the provision of broadband Internet access emerges, it 

is my hope that the market will provide solutions to the questions that we will pose 

today. In the meantime, we must be vigilant to ensure that the unique benefits of 

the Internet do not fall prey to anti-competitive pressures. While I continue to grapple with whether legislation is needed in this area in the short-term, I believe that 

Congress must conduct aggressive oversight on this issue to gather accurate information about what is—and is not—occurring in the marketplace. 

I thank the chairman for holding this important hearing today, and I look forward 

to hearing from our expert witnesses. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK COOPER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, THE CONSUMER

FEDERATION OF AMERICA, ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA, 

THE FREE PRESS, AND THE CONSUMERS UNION

SUMMARY

In amending the Communications Act we do not have to abandon a pro-competitive vision for the future, but we must understand the failures of the anti-competitive past and get back to traditional principles of communications networks that 

have served the nation well. 

First, the commitment to universal service is more important than ever because 

access to communications is increasingly vital in the digital information age. Second, 

universals service is an evolving concept that must ensure that Americans can participate in the digital future. Policies that attempt to segregate the ‘‘legacy’’ network 

from the future network and ‘‘ghettoize’’ universal service are unacceptable. Third, 

at its heart, communications is local. Global networks are useless without last mile 

facilities—the local switches/routers and transport facilities that connect the consumer to the world. Fourth, competition is an operational means to serve public interest ends; it is not the end in itself. 

Prospects for last mile competition in the converging world of 21st century U.S. 

communications are not good. There are only two local, last mile communications 

networks that can provide a fully functional broadband network to the residential 

consumer and prospects for a third or fourth are bleak. This feeble duopoly we will 

not accomplish the goals of a ubiquitous, nondiscriminatory network available to all 

Americans at reasonable rates. America has been falling behind in the global race 

to the broadband future, not because there is inadequate incentive to invest, not because we are less densely populated than other nations, but because there is inadequate competition to push the ‘‘cozy duopoly’’ to make attractively priced services 

available and unleash the Internet economy to develop consumer-friendly services. 

We urge the Congress to begin from the successful principles of past policies and 

to learn from the problems and failures of past mistakes.

• Nondiscrimination in interconnection and carriage should be the explicit legal 

obligation of communications networks that provide last mile connectivity and 

local network access, as it has been for the last century.

• The commitment to universal service should be strengthened, not weakened, 

and we should apply the program beyond the dial-tone to broadband capabilities. We support legislation introduced by Members of this Committee to meet 

this need.

• Congress can promote the goals of competition and universal service simultaneously by making available more spectrum for unlicensed uses and protecting the right of local governments to build last mile networks. We applaud 

Members of this Committee who have introduced legislation to accomplish 

both of these goals.

• Congress should recognize the economic reality of the communications market 

and direct public policy to correct for the abuses of a duopoly market strucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
95

1The Consumer Federation of America is the nation’s largest consumer advocacy group, composed of over 280 state and local affiliates representing consumer, senior, citizen, low-income, 

labor, farm, public power and cooperative organizations, with more than 50 million individual 

members. 2Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization with over 225,000 members working to 

increase informed public participation in crucial media and communications policy debates. 3 Consumers Union is a nonprofit membership organization chartered in 1936 under the laws 

of the state of New York to provide consumers with information, education and counsel about 

good, services, health and personal finance, and to initiate and cooperate with individual and 

group efforts to maintain and enhance the quality of life for consumers. Consumers Union’s income is solely derived from the sale of Consumer Reports, its other publications and from noncommercial contributions, grants and fees. In addition to reports on Consumers Union’s own 

product testing, Consumer Reports with more than 5 million paid circulation, regularly, carries 

articles on health, product safety, marketplace economics and legislative, judicial and regulatory 

actions which affect consumer welfare. Consumers Union’s publications carry no advertising and 

receive no commercial support. 

ture. Without explicit, pro-competitive policy, we cannot expect it to grow of 

its own accord. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Task Force, 

The Consumer Federation of America,1 Free Press,2 and Consumers Union 3 appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record on the issue of concentration and convergence in the high-speed broadband market and the importance 

of preserving Internet Network Neutrality. My name is Dr. Mark Cooper. I am Director of Research at the Consumer Federation of America. 

Dozens of witnesses have testified in Congressional hearings this year about the 

future of the Internet, telecommunications policy and the need for reform. It is not 

a pretty picture for consumers. Previous hearings have dealt with specific details 

of the failure of the competition policy under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 

(the 1996 Act). The 1996 Act promised an explosion of competition voice, video, and 

data communications, and yet today we are witnessing the reconstitution of Ma Bell 

and the crystallization of a cozy duopoly of cable and telco. The Committee has been 

told of skyrocketing cable rates and the plummeting position of the United States 

in the global race to the broadband future. It has been presented with examples of 

anticompetitive and anti-consumer behaviors of the giant communications companies that now dominate the market. Despite the perverse anti-competitive results 

of the ‘‘pro-competition’’ policies in 1996 Act, these companies come before you to 

demand that you legalize discrimination in the provision of access to the communications network of the future, an approach that Congress has rejected for a century. 

If future prospects are determined by our success in the broadband market (which 

few analysts deny), our current position is untenable. We are now 16th in the world 

in broadband penetration. Virtually none of our broadband lines can sustain even 

1 megabit per second of speed in both directions-up and down the network. We pay 

$15–$20 a megabit for download speed—20 times more than the global leaders. We 

have a pervasive rural/urban digital divide that is increasing as time passes. Our 

universal service policies have not been updated and reformed to efficiently address 

our broadband woes. Insufficient spectrum has been opened to facilitate a legitimate, independent wireless broadband competitor. All we are left with is the false 

promise of competition from 1996 and the farcical declarations from cable and telephone giants that a duopoly market is vigorously competitive. 

The parade of horribles with which you have been presented goes on and on and 

I will not regurgitate them in detail today. I have attached half dozen Appendices 

to this testimony that contain analyses prepared by our organizations that detail 

the failure of competition under the 1996 Act. I believe that we have been brought 

to this sorry condition because:

(1) the 1996 Act tried to do the impossible in some markets, aiming to build 

competition where conditions could not sustain sufficient competition to protect the public from abuse (e.g. local, last mile access);

(2) the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the antitrust authorities mishandled the introduction of competition in markets where it was 

sustainable, allowing the incumbents to drag their feet, engage in all manner of anti-competitive behaviors, and mergers (e.g. network opening, program access and mergers); and

96

(3) the FCC misread the 1996 Act in other markets, undermining and threatening competition that actually existed (e.g. allowing network owners to undermine competition in Internet access and services).

In amending the Communications Act (the Act) we do not have to abandon a procompetitive vision for the future, but we must fully understand the failures of the 

anti-competitive past. A competition-friendly, consumer-friendly future requires that 

we return to certain key traditional values and fundamental principles that made 

the American communications network the envy of the world throughout most of the 

last century. 

SOCIAL, TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES FOR COMMUNICATIONS POLICY

In order to evaluate competition and convergence in the communications sector 

in the context of a legislative hearing on amendments to the Communications Act 

of 1934, there are four basic principles that must be kept in mind. 

First, the Act has a specific purpose laid out clearly in the first sentence of Title 

I, Section I: ‘‘to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States, 

without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex, 

a rapid, efficient, nationwide and world-wide wire and radio communications service 

with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.’’ This commitment is more important 

than ever because access to communications is increasingly vital in the digital information age. 

Second, today’s analysis must be forward-looking, in the spirit of the Act, focusing 

on the broadband communications network that will be the dominant means of communications in the 21st century. Looking to the future does not mean we should 

ignore the problems or the progress of the past. On the contrary, the right combination of correcting past mistakes and evolving successful policies for the digital era 

is the only means of satisfying the public interest. Certainly, the track record of 

competition and the past behavior of market participants are relevant, especially if 

the same actors play similar roles. These market patterns can give a good indication 

of what is likely to happen under the various policy regimes under consideration. 

However, policies that attempt to segregate the ‘‘legacy’’ network from the future 

network and ‘‘ghettoize’’ universal service are unacceptable. The commitment to universal service needs to include a commitment to an evolving level of service to ensure all Americans participate in the future, as the Telecommunication Act of 1996 

(the 1996 Act) explicitly recognized in Section 254. 

Third, at its heart, communications is local. Communications starts and ends with 

a local transmission medium and a local network. In order to make a call from Los 

Angeles to anywhere in the world, you need a wire or spectrum and a switch in Los 

Angeles. In order to terminate a call in New York from anywhere in the world you 

need a wire or spectrum and a switch in New York. The network in between may 

be national or global, but the last mile is local. Global networks are useless without 

last mile facilities—the local switches/routers and transport facilities that connect 

the consumer to the world. The Act recognizes this as well, in the first two sections 

of Title II, which establish the obligation to provide interconnection and carriage of 

communications on nondiscriminatory rates, terms and conditions. Technology has 

not changed this basic fact. 

Fourth, competition is an operational means to serve public interest ends; it is not 

the end in itself. Further, the state of competition is an empirical question, not a 

theoretical statement of belief or desire. There is an expression in economics used 

to describe competition in markets—‘‘four is few, six is many.’ When there are fewer 

than the equivalent of roughly six, equal competitors, a market is considered highly 

concentrated because economic theory, empirical evidence and a century of practical 

experience shows that markets that are this concentrated do not perform well. In 

highly concentrated markets, prices are set above costs and innovation declines. 

With so few competitors, it is easy to avoid vigorous, head-to-head competition, especially when each uses a different technology, specializes in a different service, or 

concentrates on a different geographic area or user sector. Where competition is 

lacking, there is little chance that markets will accomplish the goals of the Act. 

Even where there is vigorous competition, there are circumstances in which the 

market will not accomplish the broader goals of the Act. It is the responsibility of 

legislators to conduct a fair assessment of competition thresholds in order to maximize the effectiveness of public interest communications policy. We must not place 

our trust in the rhetoric of special interests without facts on the ground. 

THE CURRENT STATE OF COMPETITION AND CONVERGENCE

In the emerging, converging world of 21st century communications, prospects for 

vigorous competition in the local segment of the industry are not good. At present, 

97

there are only two local, last mile communications networks that can provide a fully 

functional broadband network to the residential consumer—the incumbent local 

telephone companies and the incumbent cable operators. Two is not a sufficient 

number to ensure vigorous competition, and both sets of incumbents have a miserable record of anticompetitive, anti-consumer behavior. 

The best hopes for a third, last mile alternative were undercut when regulators 

allowed the most likely candidate—wireless—to be captured by dominant wireline 

firms through ownership or joint ventures. It stretches credible expectation to assume that a wireless provider owned by an ILEC, or in partnership with a cable 

giant, will market a wireless broadband product that directly competes with its 

wired product. They will offer premium, supplementary services to be sure—but it 

will not be a true third broadband competitor. Hope and hype surrounding other 

technologies cannot discipline anticompetitive and anti-consumer behavior. Mergers 

such as that proposed by AT&T and BellSouth will only make matters worse. No 

company with sufficient market power to extract monopoly rents will fail to do so 

absent proper public policy protections. 

On the current trajectory, consumers are falling into the grip of a ‘‘cozy duopoly’’ 

of cable and telephone giants, which will abuse its market power, abandon it social 

responsibility and retard the development of our 21st century information economy. 

We can debate whether a regulated monopoly is better or worse than an unregulated duopoly, but we believe the evidence shows beyond any doubt that the feeble 

duopoly we have will not accomplish the broad Communications Act goal of a ubiquitous, nondiscriminatory networks available to all Americans at reasonable rates. 

The danger of relying on a ‘‘cozy duopoly’’ is already apparent. The harm has already been done, and its impact is severe (see Expanding the Digital Divide and 

Falling Behind on Broadband: Why a Telecommunications Policy of Neglect is Not 

Benign—October 2004; Broadband Reality Check: The FCC Ignores America’s Digital Divide—August 2005). America has been falling behind in the global race to the 

broadband future, not because there is inadequate incentive to invest, not because 

we are less densely populated than other nations, but because there is inadequate 

competition to push the ‘‘cozy duopoly’’ to deploy attractively priced services and unleash the Internet economy to develop consumer-friendly services. The current jostling for upscale consumers with big bundles of services leaves the majority or 

Americans behind. On a per megabit basis Americans pay five to twenty times as 

much for high-speed services as consumers in many other nations. Is there any 

doubt that the primary cause of the broadband digital divide is price? Now, after 

leaving the American consumer in a serious predicament, the network giants are 

insisting on the right to discriminate against content, applications, and services on 

the Internet, as blackmail for building broadband networks. 

The failure of penetration resulting from high prices and the threat of discrimination in network access drives innovation out of the American Internet space and 

overseas. We should take note that the world’s most advance broadband nations 

have instituted policies that are based on last-mile competition, strategic direct investment in infrastructure, and free market principles of non-discrimination on the 

network to drive innovation. Not only has the FCC failed to institute pro-competitive policies, the Commission has done precisely the opposite, masking it in rhetorically glowing but substance-less reports on the state of the broadband market. 

THE PAST AS PROLOGUE: SUCCESSES AND FAILURES ON THE ROAD TO CONVERGENCE

Telecommunications 

The idea behind the break up of AT&T in 1984 was to separate those parts of 

the industry that could be competitive from those parts of the industry that could 

not and use public policy to advance competition in the competitive sector. It worked 

in the long distance industry for most consumers. Requiring the local companies to 

provide ‘‘equal access’’ to their networks and shifting fixed cost recovery onto consumers, federal regulators created an environment in which long distance companies 

eventually commoditized long distance—as long as consumers took large bundles—

and competed the price down. 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 sought to introduce more competition into 

last mile markets in telecommunications and cable. In telecommunications, it 

sought to promote competition by identifying the various elements of the local exchange network and making them available to competitors on terms that would 

allow competition. The idea was that new entrants would invest in competing facilities where they could, while the monopoly elements were rented from the incumbents. Billions of dollars were invested, but this experiment failed. In the decade 

since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) and the antirust authorities failed to enforce the communications 

98

and competition laws of this nation to promote a consumer-friendly competitive environment. The FCC allowed the incumbent local telephone and cable companies to 

avoid their obligations under the law to promote entry into the communications 

field, while the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC) allowed them to buy up their actual and potential competitors. (See Competition at the Crossroads: Can Public Utility Commissions Save Local Competition—

October 2003; Broken Promises and Strangled Competition: The Record of Baby Bell 

Merger and Market Opening Behavior—June 2005). 

The Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) were strangled by the failure 

of the FCC to force the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to open their local 

markets. And when the possibility of voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) arose, the 

ILECs slammed the door by tying high speed Internet to VOIP service. In essence, 

forcing consumers to pay twice, if they wanted an unaffiliated VOIP provider. The 

two largest CLECs were recently absorbed by the two largest ILECs. The same two 

dominant local companies also absorbed the two players in largest long distance 

service and enterprise market, reconstituting the old Bell system as two huge regional entities that dominate their home territories with about a 90 percent share 

of local service, an 80 percent share of long distance, and over a 50 percent in-region 

share of wireless service. (See Petition to Deny of the Consumer Federation of 

America and Consumers Union, In the Matter of Application for the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Authorizations from AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. and its Subsidiaries to Cingular Wireless Corporation, Federal Communications Commission, 

WT Docket No. 04–70, May 3, 2004; Reply, Federation of America and Consumers 

Union, In the Matter of Application for the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Authorizations from AT&T Wireless ‘‘Services, Inc. and its Subsidiaries to Cingular 

Wireless Corporation, WT Docket No. 04–70, May 3, 2004). 

Cable 

The 1984 Cable Act ended local regulation under the promise of competition. 

Overbuilders were supposed to enter to compete head-to-head, and satellite providers were supposed to provide intermodal competition. It never happened. The last 

mile market for cable proved too difficult to crack. Cable rates skyrocketed and the 

industry was subject to conditions of nondiscrimination in access to programming 

in 1992. Rates stabilized because of regulation, not competition. 

As in telecommunications, the 1996 Act sought to stimulate head-to-head competition in multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD), but failed. Overbuilders could not crack the market—taking a scant 2 or 3 percent of subscribers. 

Satellite grew, but could not discipline cable’s market power nor effectively discipline prices. The local telephone companies were invited into the cable business 

in a variety of ways, but chose not to enter. 

Cable operators still account for about 75 percent of all MVPD subscribers. Regional concentration has reinforced market power at the point of sale. Monthly cable 

rates have doubled since the 1996 Act and consumers are offered massive, monthly 

packages which afford them little choice in what to buy (See Time To Give Consumer Real Cable Choices: After Two Decades of Anti-Consumer Bundling and AntiCompetitive Gatekeeping—June 2004; Reply Comments of the Consumer Union and 

the Consumer Federation of America, In the Matter of Comment Requested on a la 

Carte and Themed Tier Programming and Pricing Options for Programming Distribution on Cable Television and Direct Broadcast Satellite Systems, Federal Communications Commission, MB Docket No. 04–207, August 13, 2004). Geographic consolidation has created a huge obstacle to entry into the programming sector. Cable 

operators control the programming that reaches the public and discriminate against 

unaffiliated programmers. The results of these market trends have left consumers 

and independent programmers at the mercy of the cable giants. (See Comments of 

Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and Free Press, In the Matter 

of the Commission’s Cable Horizontal and Vertical Ownership Limits and Attribution Rules, Federal Communications Commission, MM Docket No. 92–264, August 

8, 2005.) 

Internet 

When cable rolled out a telecommunications service—cable modem service—the 

FCC moved the goal posts, redefining cable modem service into a different regulatory category. It abandoned one of the vital underpinnings of the success of the 

Internet, the ‘‘Computer Inquiries.’’ This was the digital age expression of the principle of nondiscrimination that the FCC applied to computer and data services starting in 1968. As telecommunications in this country have evolved, the FCC established the policy of keeping the network neutral—allowing the intelligence in the 

network to stay at the edge. This dovetailed with the end-to-end principle of the 

99

Internet and provided an arena for free market innovation, competition and consumer choice that was unparalleled in recent experience. 

When the FCC abandoned this policy for cable modem service, America’s slide 

from Internet leadership began. This allowed the cable operators to discriminate 

against Internet service providers—forcing consumers to pay twice if they preferred 

an Internet service provider other than the cable affiliate (See The Public Interest 

in Open Communications in Networks, July 2004). Cable operators have imposed all 

manner of anti-consumer, anti-innovation restrictions in their customer agreements, 

which have driven applications developers away from this space. More importantly, 

the decision to remove Title II obligations of nondiscrimination in interconnections 

and carriers (common carrier regulations) from cable modem service paved the way 

for a total cashiering of a century of communications policy. The immediate result 

will be nothing short of the destruction of the Internet if the Congress does not 

move to hold the line on the last remaining safeguard-network neutrality. The fundamental mistake in communications policy, which we have made over and over in 

the last two decades, is to allow a very small number of network owners to control 

the physical communication system. If we duplicate that mistake again, the result 

will be the destruction of the vibrant, vigorous competition and burgeoning innovation of the Internet economy. 

THE FUTURE

The telephone companies now say they are ready to compete with cable in video, 

and the cable companies now claim to be ready to compete with telephone companies for voice. But they have demanded the elimination of the fundamental social 

obligations of the Act—universal service and nondiscrimination—before they do so. 

The notion that Congress anticipated or would ever have enacted the 1996 Act 

under belief that we would end up with a duopoly is not believable. The hope was 

for vigorous competition among many providers. 

Two competitors are simply not enough to discipline pricing, as the new entrants 

just match the high priced bundles of the incumbents. Two are not enough to ensure 

nondiscriminatory access to the communications network, as the new entrants demand to be allowed to discriminate and exclude Internet service providers and rival 

services. By traditional economic standards, three or four market players are not 

enough to assure competition, certainly not when access to the means of communications are at stake. If both network giants in a market adopt the same anti-competitive practices, where will consumers go? They are trapped. 

The fundamental importance of nondiscriminatory access to networks and services 

embodied in the Communications Act was reaffirmed just this month by key members of the ‘‘cozy duopoly.’’ Time Warner, the second largest cable company, has petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to impose an obligation of nondiscriminatory interconnection on the incumbent local telephone companies, under 

Section 251 of the Act. Verizon, the second largest telephone company, has petitioned the Commission to impose an obligation of nondiscriminatory access to video 

programming under Section 628 of the Act. Yet, both of these entities directly and 

indirectly through their trade associations, are lobbying the Congress, and have 

pushed the FCC, to eliminate all such obligation with respect to Internet access and 

services. 

The fact that the anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices of these companies 

come and go, as political pressure or public attention ebbs and flows, is not a justification to abandon the principles of nondiscrimination. On the contrary, when innovation depends on the whims of network gatekeepers it is stunted and chilled. As 

Vint Cerf has said: the Internet is about ‘‘innovation without permission.’’ When the 

choices are few, the switching costs for consumers are large, and the gatekeepers 

decide which services have access to the public, innovative activity will go elsewhere. 

Current arguments against obligations to provide nondiscriminatory access are 

based on the claim that competition exists between two networks and that is all the 

American economy needs. That claim is wrong as a matter of historical fact and 

practical experience. The obligation of nondiscrimination came to this country under 

English common law. From the founding of the Republic, public roads competed 

against privately owned canals, but they were both subject to obligations of nondiscrimination. Private railroads were added to compete with canals and roads, and 

when they began to brutally discriminate, refusing to be bound by their common law 

obligations, they brought a more explicit anti-discrimination approach into the law. 

‘‘Unjust discrimination between persons, places, commodities, or particular descriptions of traffic’’ brought common carrier down upon the railroads in the Interstate 

Commerce Act of 1887. Telegraph and wireline telephone were also expected to beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:22 Aug 01, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\TSKFRCE\042506\27225.000 HJUD1 PsN: 27225
100

have in a nondiscriminatory manner, but when AT&T refused to interconnect with 

independent companies, common carrier obligations were extended to that industry 

in the Mann Elkins Act of 1910, thus ensuring nondiscrimination in communications. 

In other words, one of the enduring principles of communications in America has 

been nondiscrimination. We have layered alternative modes of communications one 

atop another, each using a different technology, each optimized for a somewhat different form of communications and still we imposed the obligation of nondiscrimination. We have accomplished this through both a liability approach and a regulatory 

approach. The layering of networks subject to the obligation of nondiscrimination 

makes even more sense today when the importance of the free flow of information 

is magnified as it is in our digital economy. 

CONCLUSION

As this Committee moves forward to construct a new regime of communications 

policy, we urge the Congress to begin from the successful principles of past policies 

and to learn from the problems and failures of past mistakes.

• Nondiscrimination in interconnection and carriage should be the explicit legal 

obligation of communications networks that provide last mile connectivity and 

local network access, as it has been for the last century.

• The commitment to universal service should be strengthened, not weakened, 

and we should apply the program beyond the dial-tone to broadband capabilities. We support legislation introduced by Members of this Committee to meet 

this need.

• Congress can promote the goals of competition and universal service simultaneously by making available more spectrum for unlicensed uses and protecting the right of local governments to build last mile networks. We applaud 

Members of this Committee who have introduced legislation to accomplish 

both of these goals.

• Congress should recognize the economic reality of the communications market 

and direct public policy to correct for the abuses of a duopoly market structure. Without explicit, pro-competitive policy, we cannot expect it to grow of 

its own accord.

101

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KYLE MCSLARROW, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL

CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION


KMc1.eps
102


KMc2.eps
103


KMc3.eps
104


KMc4.eps
105


KMc5.eps
106

PRESS RELEASE OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

DATED APRIL 3, 2006


FCC1.eps
107


FCC2.eps
108


FCC3.eps
109

ARTICLE FROM COMMUNICATIONS DAILY SUBMITTED BY WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR., 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION


CD1.eps
110


CD2.eps
111

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY, FROM DEBORAH J. MAJORAS, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


DPM0001.eps
112


DPM0002.eps
113


DPM0003.eps
114


DPM0004.eps
115


DPM0005.eps
116


DPM0006.eps
117


DPM0007.eps
118


DPM0008.eps
119

A PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE WHITE PAPER BY JOHN WINDHAUSEN, JR., ENTITLED ‘‘GOOD

FENCES MAKE BAD BROADBAND, PRESERVING AN OPEN INTERNET THROUGH NET

NEUTRALITY’’


PK0001.eps
120


PK0002.eps
121


PK0003.eps
122


PK0004.eps
123


PK0005.eps
124


PK0006.eps
125


PK0007.eps
126


PK0008.eps
127


PK0009.eps
128


PK0010.eps
129


PK0011.eps
130


PK0012.eps
131


PK0013.eps
132


PK0014.eps
133


PK0015.eps
134


PK0016.eps
135


PK0017.eps
136


PK0018.eps
137


PK0019.eps
138


PK0020.eps
139


PK0021.eps
140


PK0022.eps
141


PK0023.eps
142


PK0024.eps
143


PK0025.eps
144


PK0026.eps
145


PK0027.eps
146


PK0028.eps
147


PK0029.eps
148


PK0030.eps
149


PK0031.eps
150


PK0032.eps
151


PK0033.eps
152


PK0034.eps
153


PK0035.eps
154


PK0036.eps
155


PK0037.eps
156


PK0038.eps
157


PK0039.eps
158


PK0040.eps
159


PK0041.eps
160


PK0042.eps
161


PK0043.eps
162


PK0044.eps
163


PK0045.eps
164


PK0046.eps
165


PK0047.eps
166


PK0048.eps
167


PK0049.eps
168


PK0050.eps
169


PK0051.eps
170


PK0052.eps
171


PK0053.eps
172


PK0054.eps
173


PK0055.eps
174


PK0056.eps
175


PK0057.eps
176

Æ


PK0058.eps