C pledged to continue monitoring market developments and reserved the right to change its mind should circumstances warrant doing SO (FCC 2005d). At the same time, the FCC issued a policy state- ment recognizing its intention to preserve consumers' rights to access content, run applications, and attach devices as they see fit (FCC 2005e). These steps were not sufficient to placate network neutrality proponents' con- cerns. The policy statement recognized an exception for "reasonable network 20 Powell (2004). Chairman Powell also called for the industry to provide consumers with clear and meaningful information regarding the terms of their broadband service plans. The Boston Globe (2003) quotes FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein acknowledging the lack of evidence that last-mile providers were limiting end users' ability to access content and call- ing network neutrality "a solution awaiting a problem." CNET News.com (2003) quotes FCC Chairman Michael Powell as stating, "I don't know yet that I see anything that says we need a rulemaking on [network neutrality]." The Wall Street Journal (2005b) quotes FCC Chairman Kevin Martin as saying, "We haven't seen any evidence of this being a problem.'" Informa- tion Week (2006) quotes former FCC Chairman Michael Powell as saying that there were "no perceptible transgressions" against network neutrality. U.S. Senate (2006a). The Wall Street Journal (2005b) notes that "Congressional proponents of net-neutrality legislation acknowledge that it isn't a problem now." Networks in Telecommunications management" and explicitly acknowledged that it has no legal effect until incor- porated into formal rules (FCC 2005e, p. 14988 n. 15). In addition, the statement released by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin in conjunction with the policy statement expressed his confidence that competition would remain sufficiently robust SO that such regulation would prove unnecessary (Martin 2005). In subsequent state- ments, Chairman Martin indicated that although he would oppose any attempt to completely