Sweeping initiatives like elevating minimum wage and lowering prescription drug prices, not technology topics, took the forefront. What that meant was a year of largely unfinished business--or, less charitably, unfulfilled promises--for high-tech companies.
Attempts at overhauling the U.S. patent system proceeded further than ever before, with the House of Representatives backing the most significant revamp in decades. But the Senate hasn't acted yet amid lingering battles over the bill's approach, and now a vote isn't expected until 2008.
Another longtime Silicon Valley priority--bumping up the number of H-1B temporary worker visas and green cards for skilled foreign workers--once again appears destined to fail, already a casualty of a divisive immigration bill that perished earlier this year.
Post-election plans from the Democrats to require paper trails of all oft-maligned electronic voting machines used in federal races also appear to have collapsed, thanks to concerns from state election officials about the cost of implementing such a plan.
It was also a quiet year for an issue that so dominated the political debate in 2006: Net neutrality. Just after Congress opened its new session, two senators reintroduced a 2006 bill that would generally prohibit broadband operators from prioritizing Internet content, and House Democratic leaders predicted it would top their tech agenda this year. But no action has been taken on the Senate proposal; no counterpart bill has emerged in the House as of mid-December; and no congressional hearings were held, although thousands of comments on the topic poured into the Federal Communications Commission during the summer.
Still, the debate doesn't appear to be over yet: Sen. Barack Obama has pledged to enact Net neutrality laws if elected president, and reports this fall about Comcast's filtering of BitTorrent file-sharing traffic have spurred new calls for such legislation from the Hill. Rep. Edward Markey has said he plans to reintroduce a similar version of last year's House proposal, with hearings to follow, when politicians reconvene in January.
As usual, Congress did a lot of spouting off about how to manage perceived Internet perils. Hot topics this time around included foreign cybersecurity threats to U.S. government systems, terrorist cells flourishing on the Web, inadvertent file sharing through peer-to-peer networks, and sexual predators ensnaring unsuspecting youth through online social sites. And for a third time, the House passed not just one, but two, different bills aimed at deterring spyware.
Digital copyright-related moves were minimal, although the entertainment industry saw some action on its frustration with piracy on university networks, with a House panel backing a bill that would require schools to take a series of new antipiracy steps.
The year wouldn't have been complete without calling a number of technology-related companies onto the hearing-room carpet. Sirius Satellite Radio CEO Mel Karmazin was forced to defend his company's proposed buyout of XM Satellite Radio; Google and Microsoft sparred over the search giant's plans to swallow up DoubleClick; and Yahoo executives, including CEO Jerry Yang, endured a verbal lashing from members of a House panel over the company's dealings in China.
Arguably the biggest victory scored by the high-tech industry--although some would say it didn't go far enough--was Congress' last-minute renewal of an expiring ban on Internet access taxes. After some jockeying over the length and breadth of the law, both chambers agreed to extend the moratorium until 2014.
Congress also managed to get President Bush to sign off on some $34 billion's worth of new government-sponsored research, education, and teacher-training programs in the science and tech arena over the next few years. There's no guarantee, however, that Bush will approve the follow-up spending bills that would actually bankroll those programs--and, in fact, he's already warned politicians on the hefty price tag and potentially "duplicative" efforts.
Agreement reached in AT&T-BellSouth merger could set the stage for renewed action on Capitol Hill.
The new majority's early agenda lacks Silicon Valley priorities, but the industry says it's not worried yet.
Federal law makes it illegal to buy, sell or obtain personal phone records through fraudulent means; violations could yield prison time.
Rep. Rick Boucher's plans include sanctioning city-sponsored Wi-Fi, weeding out bad patents, settling Net neutrality debate.
Troubled by irregularities, they say it's urgent to enact federal laws requiring voter-verifiable records of ballots cast.
Key House Democrat, Real exec blast recent ruling that ups fees paid by Webcasters. Also: Sirius CEO grilled on proposed merger.
All American households desiring converter boxes to let analog TVs play digital broadcasts may apply for up to two $40 coupons.
Democrats, Republicans alike respond to report detailing the mishandling of requests for phone, Net and financial records.
Two years after voting for federalized ID cards, some politicians are having second thoughts about the rules.
House votes for a supposed antispyware bill that opponents say will imperil legitimate Web sites too.
Opponents of controversial law win vote in the Senate to restrict uses of forthcoming digital ID cards, signaling the political winds may have shifted.
House of Representatives panel chairman says peer-to-peer networks pose a national security threat, new laws needed.
Congress takes major step toward changes long sought by big tech companies. But there's no guarantee that proposal will become law.
Jerry Yang and lawyer are ripped by both parties over allegedly withholding key information about role in cases leading to imprisonment of Chinese online dissidents.
House approval means most consumers will continue receiving tax-free Net connection bills. President is expected to sign off before current law expires.
Politicians squabble over digital-TV funds
House vote targets false IRS Web sites, e-mails
Senators voice alarm over terrorist Net presence
House panel approves e-voting paper trails
Senators propose infinite H-1Bs for advanced degree holders
Tech seeing red over green-card proposal
House passes more tech-friendly antispyware bill
Politicos threaten schools over campus piracy
Bush administration attacks shield for bloggers
Depends on what they're selling their customers, doesn't it?
If an ISP sells me "Internet Access", that doesn't mean "Internet access prioritized by who pays us the most for the privilege of connecting to you".
That's not how the Internet works, nor is it how the Internet is supposed to work.
As a customer of an ISP, I expect that ISP to give me equal connection to any IP addy I choose, at the rated and advertised bandwidth parameters. In that way, they already give priority to their customers by sheer dint of said customers choosing where they want to go.
...and trust me - ISP's get their "adequate return" if the average monthly bills they charge (and in some cases --e.g. Comcast-- forced bundling w/ cable TV) are any indication.
Net Neutrality lets me use Vonage @ 25.00/mo for VoIP, instead of having to pay Comcast $33.00/mo (and even more than that after the 'introductory period) for their crippled and (IMHO) crappy second-rate attempt at VoIP.
w/o it, Comcast can simply choke off anything heading for Vonage, while Verizon can do the same, and Qwest can do the same, which effectively kills competition. Screw that.
/P
Second, it IS the governments job to prevent unfairly-restrictive, anti-competitive, monopolistic, practices that undermine both, competition, and consumer-rights.
Third, the largest telecoms have flat-out stated (and, even, demonstrated) their intentions to fully-utilize any methodology in their power, to forcibly extract revenue from any party, possible. And, that includes using grants of public resources (and authority), and any available technological-restrictions, to control and manipulate both consumers and the marketplace (for their-own narrow advantage). Frankly, they [the Internet-access providers] have proven that they will do this, unless legally-prevented. That is just the basic-reality of the situation.
So... any objective analysis clearly demonstrates a genuine need for some basic form of "Net-Neutrality". Anything, else, is simply an extreme (and apparently irrational) socio-political dogmatism... or is, very obviously, simply the very-narrow, clearly-destructive, self-interested goals of the very companies who want to artificially-control the Internet, its related-industries, and consumers... for the selfish benefit of a few.