Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet hearing entitled, “What Your Broadband Provider Knows About Your Web Use: Deep Packet Inspection and Communications Laws and Policies.”

July 17, 2008

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I thank the witnesses for being here. Today, we discuss Deep Packet Inspection, an issue of enormous importance to the privacy of every person in America that uses the Internet.

Deep packet inspection (DPI) is part of the Internet now, and it will be part of the Internet in the future. That much is clear. However, any industry that includes a company whose motto is, “See Everything. Know Everything.” is worthy of close scrutiny.

Our job today is to consider how best to balance the deployment of DPI with adequate protection of consumers’ privacy. We must also consider the effects of DPI on competition and investment across the Internet.

An immediate concern is the targeted advertising that DPI makes possible. On Monday, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Barton, and I sent a letter to the phone company Embarq. We expressed concern that Embarq conducted a trial in an unnamed community in its service area of a targeted advertising system that tracked customers’ web use without providing clear notice of the trial to subscribers. Not only did Embarq fail to give its subscribers a chance to opt in to the tracking, but it did not directly notify affected customers that they had a chance to opt out. I find the notion that a broadband provider would implement such tracking with no real notice to the customer to be deeply troubling.

We are in this position, because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has yet to establish any clear privacy protections for customers of wireline broadband services. In its rush over the last several years to deregulate broadband services, the Commission has failed to adequately protect consumers. When Chairman Martin testified before this Committee in March of 2007, I asked him when he would remedy this problem. He responded that the Commission would endeavor to act by the end of 2007. Clearly, much work remains to be done at the FCC.

We must also consider what DPI means for the future of the Internet. DPI can be used for legitimate and necessary purposes by broadband providers, such as to reasonably manage network congestion and protect against viruses. To the extent that they utilize DPI for these purposes, I have no quarrel with broadband providers. Unfortunately, DPI can also be used for nefarious purposes, such as unfairly blocking certain applications or slowing one website’s traffic at the expense of another. We in Congress must be vigilant in the face of these and other abuses. The importance of an open and competitive Internet cannot be understated.

I hope today’s witnesses will help the Committee in its examination of DPI by addressing a few questions. How should broadband providers notify subscribers they are planning to track customer Web use? Should providers be required to obtain opt-in consent? What privacy rules should apply to broadband providers? And how do we ensure that DPI does not stifle innovation on, and investment in, the Internet?

I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to the testimony.