[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S60-S61]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, and Mr. Heinrich):
  S. 40. 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, for nearly a year now, Americans across the 
country have made their voices heard on the critical issue of how we 
protect an open Internet. Their message has been loud and clear--they 
want meaningful rules that protect the Internet as a platform for free 
expression and innovation. Consumers want to see the online space as we 
have always known it, as a place where the best ideas and services can 
reach users on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with 
a broadband provider. Last Congress I joined with 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. Today, I am pleased 
to once again join with her to reintroduce this important bill.
  When we originally introduced this legislation last June, nearly 
300,000 Americans had commented on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's open 
Internet proposal. That number alone would have been an impressive 
level of public engagement. Since that time, however, the number of 
public comments filed at the FCC has swelled to nearly 4 million. As 
the comments show, consumers are concerned that without meaningful 
rules the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge 
tolls to websites or applications for them 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.
  Like an overwhelming number of the public, I have grave concerns that 
a pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out 
their competitors, stifling competition online. 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 consumers could be 
blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband 
providers. The next generation of Internet companies and retailers 
should have the same protections that allowed a company like the 
Vermont Country Store to become a thriving online success.
  Pay-to-play 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. A pay-to-
play Internet could result in whole swaths of the Internet becoming 
functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet 
providers. This is not the Internet we know today, and the FCC or 
Congress must act to ensure that it does not come to pass.
  The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act 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. 
These are simple rules to preserve the equal platform we know online 
today.
  This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open 
Internet rules to undermine the FCC's important work to craft open 
Internet rules that will protect consumers and innovators. To the 
contrary, this bill sets out important policy positions that the FCC 
should adopt in its current consideration of open Internet rules. The 
FCC should not hesitate to act at its February meeting to ban these 
deals outright.
  The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates in 
homes and businesses across the country. I spent significant time last 
year listening to voices outside of Washington, particularly those of 
Vermonters, so that I could hear firsthand about the impact the 
Internet has had on small businesses and consumers. The Judiciary 
Committee held two hearings on this issue, including one in Vermont, 
where I heard exactly these kinds of stories. These are not people 
looking for a handout or special treatment--these are entrepreneurs and 
consumers who simply want the Internet to remain an equalizing tool 
regardless of where you live or how deep your pockets are.
  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 to protect 
innovation and competition online.
  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. 40

       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 2015''.

     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:

[[Page S61]]

       (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.
                                 ______