[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 63 (Friday, May 19, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4840-S4841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Obama, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2917. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net 
neutrality; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will preserve the open, unrestricted nature of the Internet. I want to 
thank my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Inouye, with whom I 
have worked closely to draft this bill. I also want to acknowledge 
Senator Wyden, who has introduced similar net neutrality legislation, 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Having risen from its humble beginnings as an obscure tool for a few 
tech-savvy enthusiasts, the Internet now stands as the epicenter of 
commerce today. An April 2006 Pew Internet study cites that 73 percent 
of adults in the U.S. now use the Internet, 45 percent of whom use it 
for making major financial decisions. Last year alone, over $1.7 
trillion in transactions took place on the Internet, and today 725,000 
small businesses use e-commerce giant eBay as a way to reach customers. 
Because anyone, anywhere, can communicate and transact business with 
virtually any corner of the globe with an Internet connection, the 
benefits of the Internet on small businesses--and on rural places like 
my home State of Maine--cannot be overstated.
  The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by 
enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on 
a level playing field for consumers' business. Anyone can send an e-
mail or set up a Web site at little or no cost, and the marketplace has 
picked winners and losers, rather than an arbitrary gatekeeper.
  When users log onto the Internet, they take a lot of things for 
granted. They assume that they will be able to access whatever Web site 
they want, when they want to--and if they have a broadband connection, 
they expect this to happen at a high speed, regardless of what Web site 
they choose. They also assume that they can use any feature they like, 
anytime they choose--watching online videos, searching for information, 
making purchases, and sending e-mails and instant messages. They assume 
that they can attach devices to make their online experience better--
things such as Web cameras, game controllers, or extra hard drives. 
What they are assuming is called ``net neutrality,'' the principle at 
the core of the Internet's DNA. The idea is that the Internet should be 
open and free, restricted by no one.
  Unfortunately, all this may change very soon if Congress does not 
take action. In August 2005, the Federal Communications Commission 
issued an order removing virtually all regulation of Internet 
facilities that connect homes and businesses to the World Wide Web. 
Among the regulations lifted were the long-standing non-discrimination 
rules that required the owners of Internet facilities networks--in most 
cases cable and telephone companies--to allow delivery of all Internet 
content to the end user at the same speed, refraining from blocking any 
Web sites. These long-standing rules have enabled small businesses in 
Maine and across the country to have the same access to customers as 
giant corporations. Yet without the protections of the legislation we 
introduce today, those small businesses may be reduced to second-class 
citizen status on the Web.
  Telephone and cable companies supply broadband Internet service to 98 
percent of Internet subscribers in this country. Recently, executives 
from several of the largest of these firms publicly indicated their 
intention to charge fees to Web site operators before giving them 
access to their highspeed lines, and relegate those who do not pay up 
to the slower transmission lines. A Web site owned by a company who is 
a competitor could even be blocked entirely.
  Anyone who has sat frustrated at a computer screen waiting for a file 
to download knows what this means for the those Web site owners not 
willing to pay up: their sites and applications will run at a slower 
pace, thus turning away consumers. These Internet companies, e-mail 
services, and Web site owners will be relegated to the Information 
``Dirt Road''--the Information Superhighway will be reserved for those 
companies who are willing to pay the toll. Worst of all, consumers and 
businesses who rely on these Internet services will be completely 
powerless, since it is beyond their control as to which Web site owners 
are willing to pay the fees.
  The legislation we introduce today keeps the rules where they always 
have been, until last year. First, the bill bars network operators from 
blocking, degrading or impairing Internet traffic. Second, the bill 
ensures that network operators are not allowed to create a two-tiered 
Internet--an Internet that treats those who can afford to do business 
with large nationwide broadband providers more favorably than those who 
do not. Virtually everyone has called for more widespread deployment of 
broadband facilities: this bill ensures that those high-speed networks 
are available for all users of the Internet.
  This legislation already enjoys support from a broad spectrum of 
groups who care about Internet freedom, such as the Consumer's Union, 
the Parent's Television Council, the Gun Owners of America, the 
American Library Association, and the Christian Coalition. Altogether 
over 140 organizations have backed our efforts to prevent 
discrimination the Internet.
  If we allow companies to set up tollbooths along the Information 
Superhighway, we will fundamentally alter every Internet user's 
experience and stifle the entrepreneurship that flourishes on the 
world's last remaining

[[Page S4841]]

frontier. Network operators should not have the power to decide which 
Web pages load faster, which content their customers can access, and 
whose data has the highest priority. Network operators already enjoy 
near-monopolistic privileges in many markets across the country. Should 
this market power now be extended to messaging services, streaming 
video, or online shopping, just to name a few?
  Consumers should decide which businesses succeed and which fail, not 
network providers. What has made the Internet such a remarkable success 
is the ability of consumers everywhere to use the connection they pay 
for to experience a world of their own choosing on their own terms. 
Earlier this month, the New York Times endorsed the legislation in an 
editorial when it called for ``a strong net neutrality bill that would 
prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. 
Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get 
behind it.'' I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Internet 
Freedom Preservation Act.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Snowe and I are 
introducing the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.
  Internet freedom, known as net neutrality, is one of the most 
important issues facing us as the telecommunications landscape 
continues to change, and frankly, how this issue is resolved could 
determine whether our Nation continues to be a world leader in the area 
of innovation and technology.
  Consumers, businesses, and the very marketplace of ideas have 
benefited from the historically open nature of the Internet.
  From the largest of corporations to the person working alone in a 
garage, all have had the ability to offer their content, services, and 
applications over the Internet and to reach consumers, because of this 
open structure of the Internet and the existence of net neutrality 
nondiscrimination rules.
  I think it is important to point the wide variety of groups that have 
called for the preservation of strong net neutrality protections: 
groups as diverse as Consumers Union, AARP, Microsoft, Amazon, Gun 
Owners of America, and the National Religious Broadcasters, and over 
150 organizations or companies so far have weighed in on this important 
issue.
  The Internet, and the broadband network operators that bring the 
Internet to businesses and consumers, have enabled even the most rural 
town in my State of North Dakota to be connected to the rest of the 
world, and this connection has brought economic opportunities, and 
advances in health and education that could otherwise not have been 
possible.
  Now, however, the open nature of the Internet is at risk. It is at 
risk because of actions by the Federal Communications Commission, and 
because of the lack of competition in the broadband market.
  Non-discrimination rules that existed for years on broadband 
providers have been removed, leaving only the marketplace to act as a 
check. The problem is, however, that the broadband marketplace is 
highly concentrated--98 percent of consumers get their broadband from 
either cable modem or DSL, and up to 50 percent of consumers can only 
get their broadband from one broadband provider.
  Thus, the situation is not a marketplace of players on an equal 
footing. Broadband network operators have substantial market power and 
the incentive to use it. There have been public statements by some of 
their CEOs that have made clear that they intend to use that leverage 
to exact payments from content providers and to operate as gatekeepers.
  These broadband network operators have become more than just the pipe 
that carries content, services, and applications to a consumer; they 
now are in the business of these content, services and applications as 
well. Thus, they have the leverage, and the incentive to favor their 
own services over competition.
  Until now the Internet has been driven by consumers and innovators, 
which have in turn, encouraged broadband deployment.
  Consumers pay for their Internet connection, and expect that they can 
go anywhere they lawfully want to on the Internet.
  But without maintaining the longstanding nondiscrimination rules that 
have been in place for decades, the Internet could go from being driven 
by consumers and innovators to bring dictated by network operators.
  What will be the impact on the next great application or service over 
the Internet if the very first thing the next start-up has to do is 
work out an agreement with the broadband provider?
  What will be the impact on consumers if their choices are 
artificially limited by their broadband providers as to what VOIP or 
video service they can get?
  I agree that broadband network operators are investing millions of 
dollars in building the next generation of infrastructure, and I 
commend them for that. Under our bill they will still be able to be 
compensated for their investments, as they are now, by charging for 
their broadband connections.
  But they should not be able to put up additional tolls on the 
Internet, or erect barricades to competition that will change the 
nature of the Internet as we know it.
  Our bill will preserve the freedom and the openness of the Internet 
that we have come to take for granted, but that is now at risk.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation that I introduce 
today with Senator Snowe.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to today in support of the 
legislation introduced by my colleagues Senators Snowe and Dorgan to 
preserve a founding principle of communications law that is critical to 
the promotion of innovation and opportunity for all Americans. The 
preservation of the open, non-discriminatory architecture of the 
Internet is vital to the American economy and society. Over a 
relatively short timeframe, the Internet has become a robust engine for 
market innovation, economic growth, social discourse, and the free flow 
of ideas precisely because it has allowed consumer choice and control 
over the use of lawful content, applications and services. In turn, 
anyone with a good idea has been able to connect to consumers and 
compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. The 
marketplace has picked winners and losers, and not a central 
gatekeeper. This bedrock concept of connecting innovators and consumers 
without interference, known as ``net neutrality,'' has been a hallmark 
feature of the Internet and is a principle reason why America leads the 
world in online innovation.
  Regrettably, without this legislation that heritage may be at risk as 
traditional rules that have required communications operators to follow 
principles of non-discrimination no longer apply. In August 2005, the 
FCC refused to adopt meaningful and enforceable consumer safeguards at 
the time it classified DSL and cable modem as an information service. 
As a result, the bill that I have cosponsored with Senators Snowe and 
Dorgan is necessary to ensure that consumers and content companies have 
the ability to use the Internet without interference or gate-keeping by 
the network operators.
  This bill responds to recent FCC decisions by preserving the openness 
of the Internet and thereby encourages the continued development of 
innovative Internet technologies, services, and content that has fueled 
the American economy. Specifically, under the bill, consumers will have 
the ability to access the content of their choosing, and Internet 
businesses will have the ability to compete head-to-head with network 
providers on the basis of the merits of their offerings.
  As the father of the Internet, Vint Cerf, said to our Committee, the 
Internet is ``innovation without permission.'' The proposed legislation 
will ensure that the Internet indeed remains a platform that spawns 
innovation and economic development for the benefit of all Americans.
                                 ______