ity in February 2006 (U.S. Senate 2006a) and eventually rejected a network neutrality amendment by a vote of 11-11. The Senate Judiciary Committee also conducted hearings in June and engaged in active discussions with the leadership of the Senate Commerce 23 For editorials favoring network neutrality, see Business Week (2005); Christian Science Monitor (2006); New York Times (2006); Newsweek (2006); San Francisco Chronicle (2006); San Jose Mercury News (2006). For editorials opposing network neutrality, see CED Magazine (2006); Reason Online (2006); Wall Street Journal (2006); Washington Post (2006). The Regulation of Last-Mile Broadband Networks Committee as to whether network neutrality could be addressed through antitrust (U.S. Senate 2006b; Congress Daily PM 2006). The legislation died at the end of the 109th Congress after the full Senate failed to act on any of these propos- als. Senators Byron Dorgan and Olympia Snowe reintroduced standalone net- work neutrality legislation in 2007, which languished in Committee (U.S. Senate 2007). Other policymakers began to focus attention on the issue as well. In a major policy speech, FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras "urge[d] caution" and warned of the dangers of mandating network neutrality "absent clear evidence of market failure or consumer harm" (Majoras 2006, p. 15). At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission formed an Internet Access Task Force to study issue, which conducted two days of hearings in February 2007 and issued a report recommend- ing that policymakers should hesitate before mandating network neutrality in the absence of a clear demonstration of market failure or consumer harm (FTC 2007). The U.S. Justice Department (2007) has adopted a similar position, noting the absence of evidence of harmful practices and pointing out how imposing restric- tions prophylactically can foreclose practices that would benefit consumers. The FCC continued to address the issue as well, most notably when clearing Verizon's acquisition of MCI and SBC's acquisition o