[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.
______