[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 152 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6768-S6769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NET NEUTRALITY

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the principle of ``net neutrality'' to 
protect an open Internet has found its way into the public 
consciousness like few other regulatory issues that I have seen in my 
time in the Senate. Over 3.5 million Americans have submitted comments 
to the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, during its consideration 
of replacement net neutrality rules this year. The reason for this 
record-setting level of public engagement is simple: The net neutrality 
debate is fundamentally about how we want the Internet to operate. 
Millions of Americans have made their voices heard because they want an 
open and free Internet that works for everyone, not simply those with 
deep pockets. I could not agree more.
  An Internet that is split into the haves and have-nots is 
unacceptable. That is why the FCC should enact clear and enforceable 
rules to prevent ``paid prioritization'' agreements that would allow 
some content providers to outbid smaller competitors to gain fast-lane 
service to customers online. At the same time, the country's leading 
broadband providers should unequivocally commit that they will not 
engage in this type of detrimental deal. We need meaningful pledges 
from our Nation's broadband providers that they share the American 
public's commitment to an Internet that remains open and equally 
accessible to all.
  In October, I wrote to the major Internet service providers, ISPs--
Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter, Verizon, and AT&T--asking them to 
make exactly that commitment. They all maintained that they do not 
currently plan to engage in paid prioritization--an assertion I 
welcome. What they did not do was answer my call for a firm commitment 
that they will never engage in that behavior in

[[Page S6769]]

the absence of clear rules prohibiting such deals.
  This is disappointing. As Comcast noted in its letter, voluntary 
commitments from individual companies would not serve as a substitute 
for rules applicable to all broadband providers. Such pledges would, 
however, send a strong signal to the American people that broadband 
providers share their commitment to an open and equal Internet. It is 
unfortunate that these companies were unwilling to make that 
commitment--presumably because they know that if fast lanes are allowed 
in the future, market forces may drive them and other ISPs to consider 
such deals to maximize profits at the expense of competition online. 
This ``race to the bottom'' scenario is exactly why we need clear rules 
in place prohibiting such agreements. I appreciate that Comcast went 
further than the other ISPs by expressing support for my legislation 
with Representative Doris Matsui of California, which would require the 
FCC to ban paid prioritization agreements so that all ISPs are subject 
to such a rule.
  The concern over a pay-to-play Internet that advantages the largest 
corporations over smaller players is very real. I was disappointed that 
some Internet service providers in their responses brushed aside these 
concerns dismissively. It is not ``demagoguery,'' as Verizon suggested 
in its response, when small business owners like Cabot Orton of the 
Vermont Country Store say that they simply want to see an Internet that 
continues to treat all businesses equally. It is not a ``phantasm'' 
when independent content creators like actress Ruth Livier acknowledge 
that they would not have been able to start their Web sites if they had 
to pay for priority access to reach viewers online or compete against 
players who did. These are real concerns, shared by millions of 
Americans. Their voices should not be casually and callously dismissed 
because they cannot afford to pay lobbyists to advocate on their behalf 
at the FCC.
  The FCC is continuing its important work to craft new open Internet 
rules. For months, I have been clear that I will not support any rules 
that do not ban Internet fast lanes. I have spent much of this year 
listening to Vermonters and others to hear firsthand about how a pay-
to-play world would harm the Internet ecosystem.
  The responses to my letter highlight one element that unites all of 
those involved in the net neutrality debate--the need for certainty. 
Broadband providers understandably want to know the rules by which 
their actions will be governed, and consumers want certainty that their 
Internet service will continue to provide them unfettered access to 
lawful content online. Recently, some broadband providers like AT&T 
have threatened to stop investing in further innovation and deployment 
of broadband in the name of uncertainty. Of course, they could decide 
to provide certainty on issues like paid prioritization at any time 
regardless of the FCC's actions by making the pledge to consumers I 
have called on them to make.
  I will continue my call for broadband providers to listen to their 
customers and pledge to never engage in paid prioritization. While they 
did not do so in response to my letters, it is never too late for them 
to make that commitment to the American people.

                          ____________________