[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.
                                 ______