[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3720-S3721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Sanders):
S. 2476. A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to
promulgate regulations that prohibit certain preferential treatment or
prioritization of Internet traffic; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr President, in recent months, we have seen an outpouring
of public support for maintaining meaningful open Internet rules.
Americans are speaking loud and clear--they want an Internet that is a
platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and
services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a
financial relationship with a broadband provider. I agree, which is why
today I am proud to join my friend in the House, Representative Doris
Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the
Federal Communications Commission FCC, to ban pay-to-play deals on the
Internet.
Since FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler began a proceeding to consider new
open Internet rules, nearly 300,000 Americans have commented on his
proposal. They are concerned that the Internet will become a place
where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications in
order to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure
from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the
Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the
innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in
the online world.
A pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out
their competitors. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea
to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry
that its access to
[[Page S3721]]
consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid
arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet
companies should have the same protections that allowed a company like
Vermont's Dealer.com to become a thriving success.
Such arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the
assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed
that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in
broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. If the FCC
clears the way for pay-to-play deals, whole swaths of the Internet
could become functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain
Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today and we must
act to ensure that it does not come to pass.
The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, which I am
introducing with Congresswoman Matsui today, is straightforward. It
requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging
websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent
providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services.
This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open
Internet rules as an excuse for the FCC to not take any action that
will protect consumers and innovators. The FCC should act now to ban
these deals. I appreciate that Chairman Wheeler is asking whether they
should be banned outright in the current open Internet proceeding. The
overwhelming response from the American people is that they should be.
The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates outside
of the Beltway, and with good reason--most Americans interact with the
Internet as part of their daily lives. The issue of how we protect and
promote an open Internet is crucial to our culture and our economy. I
want to make sure that stakeholders from outside of Washington have an
opportunity to show policymakers and regulators here that their
decisions will have a significant impact throughout the country. That
is why I am holding a Judiciary Committee field hearing on July 1 at
the University of Vermont.
There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that
harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress
should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue. I urge the
Senate to pass this constructive legislative response.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2476
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Online Competition and
Consumer Choice Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. FCC REGULATIONS PROHIBITING CERTAIN PREFERENTIAL
TREATMENT OR PRIORITIZATION OF INTERNET
TRAFFIC.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate
regulations that--
(1) prohibit a broadband provider from entering into an
agreement with an edge provider under which the broadband
provider agrees, for consideration, in transmitting network
traffic over the broadband Internet access service of an end
user, to give preferential treatment or priority to the
traffic of such edge provider over the traffic of other edge
providers; and
(2) prohibit a broadband provider, in transmitting network
traffic over the broadband Internet access service of an end
user, from giving preferential treatment or priority to the
traffic of content, applications, services, or devices that
are provided or operated by such broadband provider, or an
affiliate of such broadband provider, over the traffic of
other content, applications, services, or devices.
(b) Rules of Construction.--
(1) Certain traffic not affected.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as superseding any obligation or
authorization a broadband provider may have to address the
needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public
safety, or national security authorities, consistent with or
as permitted by applicable law, or as limiting the ability of
the provider to do so.
(2) Clarification of authority.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as limiting the authority of the
Commission under any other provision of law, including the
authority to promulgate regulations prohibiting or limiting
preferential treatment or prioritization of the traffic of an
edge provider by a broadband provider under GN Docket No. 14-
28 (relating to the matter of protecting and promoting the
open Internet).
(c) Enforcement.--For purposes of sections 503(b) and 504
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b); 504),
this section shall be considered to be a part of such Act.
With respect to enforcement under this section only, the
following modifications of such section 503(b) shall apply:
(1) Paragraph (5) shall not apply.
(2) Paragraph (6) shall be applied by substituting the
following: ``No forfeiture penalty shall be determined or
imposed against any person under this subsection if the
violation charged occurred more than 3 years prior to the
date of issuance of the required notice or notice of apparent
liability.''.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 153).
(2) Broadband internet access service.--The term
``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given
such term in section 8.11 of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(3) Broadband provider.--The term ``broadband provider''
means a provider of broadband Internet access service.
(4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(5) Edge provider.--The term ``edge provider'' means an
individual, institution, or other entity that provides--
(A) any content, application, or service over the Internet;
or
(B) a device used for accessing any content, application,
or service over the Internet.
(6) End user.--The term ``end user'' means an individual,
institution, or other entity that uses a broadband Internet
access service.
______