[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2988-S2994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. President, in the rubble of this week, the Federal Communications 
Commission is going to formally start the process of destroying net 
neutrality. A free and open internet is without question important to 
democracy and American innovation.
  Apparently this FCC believes we no longer need the protections that 
keep internet service providers from discriminating against websites 
and online content, but these protections are

[[Page S2989]]

what make the internet what it is today. They mandate, very simply, 
that ISPs have to treat websites the same, whether they are Twitter or 
Facebook, Breitbart or the New York Times. The FCC is supposed to be 
there to make sure ISPs follow this basic principle: Treat all content 
the same. But under this administration, these protections are being 
undermined.
  It starts tomorrow when they will vote to begin the process to repeal 
net neutrality. I really don't know why the FCC thinks this is a good 
idea, because the internet is not broken. What problem were you trying 
to solve by getting rid of these protections, and on whose behalf are 
you working? There is not a single constituent in my State with whom I 
ever interacted--and I bet this is true for many other Members of the 
Senate and House--who says: You know those net neutrality protections? 
I hate them. You have to get rid of that net neutrality thing. It is 
bugging me and harming my access to the internet. I would like fast 
lanes and slow lanes. I would like my ISP to determine what I get to 
see and how quickly I get to see it.
  There is literally no constituency for what is happening tomorrow, 
but there is one group that stands to gain here, and that is the ISPs, 
the companies that control your access to the internet. It is true that 
they are promising to keep the internet open and free. In fact, they 
did it just this week. A group of ISPs published a full page ad in the 
print version of the Washington Post reaffirming their commitment to 
voluntary net neutrality. In other words, they promised to be good to 
all of us as consumers. They are basically saying: You don't need the 
Federal Communications Commission to enforce any rule or law related to 
a free and open internet. We will do it voluntarily.
  But here is the thing: Without net neutrality as a matter of rule and 
law, there is nothing that prevents them from treating content or 
websites differently. In fact, they will have financial incentives to 
do just that because making profits is their obligation. They have to 
maximize their profits. They have a fiduciary obligation to maximize 
profits. If there is an opportunity now or in the future to change the 
business model for internet service, changing the internet as we know 
it along the way, they are duty bound to pursue it. They do not have an 
obligation--a moral one or a statutory one or a legal one--to a free 
and open internet; they have an obligation to their shareholders and 
profits.
  Here is what is going to happen if the FCC succeeds ending net 
neutrality once and for all: ISPs would be allowed to split content 
into two lanes--favorite content would be in the fast lane and 
everything else in the slow lane. Companies that need their content to 
be fast for video streaming or cloud services would have to pay to be 
in the fast lane. At the end of the day, the cost is going to be 
transferred to you, the consumer.
  We would pay more for the same internet, but the issue here is bigger 
than a company that streams video asking an ISP to stream their content 
faster in exchange for more money. It is not just that. This is an era, 
as we all know, of corporate consolidation. The content companies and 
the ISPs are often one and the same. So it is not just that you would 
get Netflix negotiating with Comcast and maybe paying extra so they can 
stream their content so you can view it; it is also what happens when 
Comcast or some other company is also the content company.
  I want everybody to think this through. If you were running a company 
that provided access to the internet and also owned content, wouldn't 
you be at least a little bit tempted--wouldn't your board of directors 
at least make you look at the possibility that if you have television 
shows and if you have websites and you depend on traffic, why in the 
world wouldn't you prioritize your own stuff? It is not apocryphal. It 
is not apocalyptic to imagine that a company would say: We are a 
vertical now, and we own content. Why are we going to put up our 
competitor's stuff at the same rates? The law doesn't provide for that 
anymore. Net neutrality is a thing of the past.
  You don't have to imagine that these are bad people who are running 
these companies; you just have to imagine that they are businesspeople 
and that they run publicly traded companies that have to give quarterly 
earnings reports and have to show profit every single quarter. What 
better way to make profit than to create what they call on the internet 
a walled garden?
  Everything seems like the internet you used to have, except it is all 
within one family of companies, and that is what net neutrality is 
designed to prevent. When you get on the internet, your ISPs can't tell 
you whether to go to Google or Bing or Yahoo or Facebook or Breitbart 
or the New York Times or the Honolulu Star-Advertiser or wherever it 
wants; you get it all at the same speed. That is what net neutrality is 
all about. But to the degree and extent that net neutrality protections 
are repealed as a matter of law, these companies can suddenly provide 
you with opportunities to see all their stuff and only their stuff. You 
will still have access to the other stuff. It might not stream very 
well or load very fast. That is what net neutrality is all about.
  Entrepreneurs and small business owners will also be hurt. Think 
about what it takes to start and grow a business. You don't have extra 
cash to hand over to your ISPs to make sure people can access your 
content. Without net neutrality, new services, new websites, new big 
ideas will have a harder time competing with established 
businesses. That is why more than 1,000 entrepreneurs, investors, and 
startups from every single State have signed a letter asking that the 
FCC protect net neutrality--because it is critical for innovation.

  When you think about how quickly the internet of things is gaining 
steam, it is also a big deal for what they call IoT. We are at a 
historic moment in innovation in the digital space.
  Kevin Kelly, internet pioneer, recently did an interview with Stephen 
Dubner of Freakonomics Radio. They talked about the fact that in 2015 
alone, 5 quintillion transistors were added to devices that were not 
computers. A quintillion is a billion billion. That is such an enormous 
number, it is hard to fathom. That is how fast the internet of things 
is growing. That is the level of innovation that is taking place, but 
this innovation depends on a free and open internet.
  So the degree and extent that individual ISPs are able to control who 
gets what and at what speed, all of that innovation at the app level, 
the IoT level, all the cool stuff you are looking forward to from 
Silicon Valley or wherever it may be, is in danger because then it 
becomes about paying tolls. Then it becomes about a commercial 
negotiation. Then it becomes about lawyering up. You have a really good 
idea? Lawyer up. You have a really good idea? Get people who have a 
master's in business administration. Forget the engineers. Forget the 
content developers. Forget the creative class. What you have to do is 
figure out how to get in on what will essentially be what they call a 
closed shop. And that is what net neutrality is all about.
  What if your internet service provider has a relationship with one of 
these websites? What if an auto sales website is purchased by a media 
company or vice versa? If you try to purchase a car online, you may end 
up in an internet funhouse if the FCC takes away net neutrality. It 
will look like the internet, but you may not have complete access to 
all the options. The same idea applies to the internet of things. If 
every car connects to the internet, broadband providers could decide 
that it takes too much bandwidth and pick and choose which brands are 
allowed to connect to the internet. That is what can happen without net 
neutrality.
  They could offer a basic internet package that limits customers to 
certain websites or content, sort of how you buy basic cable and then 
decide whether you want ESPN or HBO or whatever additional channels. It 
is not totally out of the question that that could be the way you 
access the internet in the future.
  The thing is, it sounds so scary, it sounds so crazy that you can't 
imagine it would happen. And it is true that it didn't happen in the 
past, but that is because it wasn't in their commercial interest to do 
it. Think about towns where there are one or two ISPs. Think about a 
future 5 or 10 years from now when net neutrality is repealed. The 
moment it is in their commercial interest to do something to change the

[[Page S2990]]

very nature of the internet is the moment they will be duty bound to 
consider going forward.
  When net neutrality was adopted under the previous FCC, there were 
3.8 million people who provided comment. This is a very unique process. 
When the law passed that allowed ISPs to sell your commercial data, to 
sell your browsing data to third parties--that happened in a 30-hour 
period--basically, nobody noticed. We tried to mobilize. We got the 
word out. They had the votes, and it happened very quickly. This is 
different. Under the law, there is a public comment period. There were 
3.8 million people who commented on the last net neutrality debate. 
There are already 1 million people who have commented through the FCC's 
website.
  Tomorrow, the FCC will take an action that will open up the comment 
period and provide people an opportunity to weigh in on this. I would 
just offer that I do not believe there is any real constituency for 
what the FCC is doing. I think people across the country--young and 
old; left, right, and center; Democratic and Republican; urban and 
rural--everybody who cares about a free and open internet ought to care 
about what is happening tomorrow.
  With that, I would like to yield to a Member of the Senate who has 
many years of leadership in this space, someone who has authored some 
of the statutory architecture that has allowed this innovation on the 
internet to occur, someone who fights for consumers, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I say to Senator Schatz, thank you for 
organizing our Senate net neutrality champions out here on the floor 
today so that we can all stand up and add our voices to your voice in 
speaking on this critical issue. Now, there are people watching the 
Senate floor right now by watching the live stream on c-span.org or on 
Facebook Live.
  They might be engaged citizens, they might be political junkies, or 
maybe they need something to help them to ensure that their newborn is 
going to go to sleep this afternoon. That is watching C-SPAN. That 
helps the family. Let's face it. The action in this most deliberative 
body can sometimes feel a little slow.
  Now, imagine just a few companies deciding that c-span.org will be 
put in a slow lane, that the public interest content streamed out to 
the world from this Chamber will be sent out at an even more 
deliberative pace, all while kitten videos get priority in an internet 
fast lane.
  When people talk about net neutrality, that is what we are talking 
about. Instead of an open and free internet where the billions of 
clicks, likes, and links made by customer and entrepreneurs in their 
living rooms and offices determines who wins and loses, it will be just 
a few companies in a few corporate boardrooms deciding who gets into 
the express lane and who falls behind in an internet traffic jam.
  That is why we need a true open internet. That is exactly what I 
heard last month when I hosted a roundtable in Boston with a number of 
our tech firms--Carbonite, TripAdvisor, Wayfair, iRobot, and others. 
Their message was clear: Net neutrality impacts businesses across the 
entire internet ecosystem, and the ever-changing environment of 
entrepreneurship can be easily disrupted without this ingredient--net 
neutrality.
  Today, essentially every company is an internet company. Consider 
these statistics. In 2016, almost one-half of the venture capital funds 
invested in this country went toward internet-specific and software 
companies. That is $25 billion worth of investment.
  At the same time, to meet America's insatiable demand for broadband 
internet, U.S. broadband and telecommunications industry giants 
invested more than $87 billion in capital expenditures in 2015. That is 
the highest rate of annual investment in the last 10 years. So we have 
hit a sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless technology is 
high, job creation is high, and venture capital investment in online 
startups is high. Disrupting that formula now would only create chaos 
and uncertainty.
  With strong net neutrality protections in place, there is no problem 
that needs to be fixed. But the Trump administration wants to upend 
this hallmark of American innovation and democratization by gutting net 
neutrality rules. Tomorrow, Chairman Ajit Pai and the Republican-
controlled Federal Communications Commission will vote to begin a 
proceeding that will allow a few powerful broadband providers to 
control the internet.
  Now, the big broadband barons and their Republican allies say: We 
don't need net neutrality. They say: What we really need is a ``light 
touch'' regulatory framework for broadband.
  But let's be clear here. When the broadband behemoths say ``light 
touch'' what they really mean is ``hands off''. They really want hands 
off of their ability to choose online winners and losers.
  That is what they really want, to allow AT&T, Verizon, Charter, 
Comcast, and all of the other internet service providers to set up 
internet fast lanes for those with the deepest pockets, pushing those 
who can't onto a slow gravel path. Then, they will just pass any extra 
costs onto the consumer. What they really want is to sideline the FCC, 
our telecommunications cop on the beat, and to create an unregulated 
online ecosystem where broadband providers can stifle the development 
of competing services that cannot afford an internet E-ZPass.
  No one should have to ask permission to innovate. But with fast and 
slow lanes, that is precisely what an entrepreneur will need to do. 
Right now, the essence of the internet is to innovate and test new 
ideas first, and if an idea then takes off, the creator can attract 
capital and expand.
  Creating internet fast and slow lanes would flip this process on its 
head. Instead, an entrepreneur would first need to raise capital in 
order to start innovating, because she would need to pay for fast lane 
access to have a chance for her product to be seen and to succeed. Only 
those with access to deep pockets would develop anything new. Imagine 
the stifling of creativity if startups need massive amounts of money 
even to innovate.
  Now, Chairman Pai says he likes net neutrality. But in reality, his 
proposal would eliminate the very order that established today's 
network neutrality rules. That is like saying you value democracy but 
you don't see a need for a constitution. It makes no sense.
  For Chairman Pai and the ISPs, title II is a bad word. It is some 
terrible thing. But for everyone else--consumers, activists, and 
entrepreneurs--title II is a reason to celebrate. Back in 2010, the FCC 
attempted to put net neutrality rules in place without reclassifying 
under title II of the Communications Act. The DC Circuit Court 
invalidated those rules. Then, in 2015, the Federal Communications 
Commission rightfully adopted the open internet order, which 
reclassified broadband under title II, and the DC Circuit upheld the 
rule in 2016.
  The issue is settled. The FCC should not repeat past mistakes and 
instead should maintain the successful current regime. Why is title II 
appropriate? It was Congress's intent to preserve the FCC's authority 
to forestall threats to competition and innovation in 
telecommunications services, even as the technologies used to offer 
those services evolved over time.
  Now, classifying broadband under title II is just a very fancy way of 
saying broadband is like telephone service. It is a basic utility that 
Americans rely on every day to work, to communicate, and to connect. 
Broadband has become the single most important telecommunications 
service Americans use to transmit information from one to another. This 
is common sense to Americans around the country, with the only 
exception being high-powered telecommunications lobbyists inside the 
beltway here in Washington.
  Chairman Pai also claims that he wants internet service providers to 
voluntarily decide to follow net neutrality principles. That is like 
asking a kid to voluntarily swear not to stick his hand in the cookie 
jar. It just won't happen. We know the broadband industry--your cable, 
wireless or telecommunications provider--can't self-regulate 
themselves. They struggle to even show up on time to install or fix 
your service. Do we really trust them to resist using their internet 
gatekeeper role and putting their online competitors at an unfair 
disadvantage?

[[Page S2991]]

  This effort on net neutrality is just one piece of the Republicans' 
effort to dismantle the basic protections safeguarding American 
families. Instead of protecting our privacy, our healthcare, our 
environment, or our net neutrality, the Republicans want to give it all 
away to their friends and allies and big corporations.
  The FCC has received more than 1 million comments already, and I am 
sure millions more will flow in the weeks and months to come, as the 
FCC comment period will stretch until at least August. Those are 
comments from every corner of the country and from every walk of life. 
They are standing up to say we need a truly open and free Internet.
  Openness is the internet's heart. Nondiscrimination is its soul. Any 
infringement on either of those features undermines the spirit and 
intent of net neutrality.
  So I proudly stand with my fellow netizens out on the Senate floor 
and all across America who oppose any efforts to undermine net 
neutrality. We are on the right side of history. I am ready for the 
historic fight to come.
  Twelve years ago, I introduced the first net neutrality bill in the 
House of Representatives. In the Senate, the first net neutrality bill 
was introduced by the Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden. This has been a 
long battle, a long struggle coming. We now have America in its sweep 
spot, with net neutrality on the books for software and broadband 
companies, which allows for a fair balance in terms of the competition 
in the marketplace.
  So I now turn and yield for the Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
not just today but all of the years in which he has led this battle. He 
is right. We have served together now in both Chambers and, in fact, 
when I was here and he was in the other body, we talked often about why 
this was such a bedrock principle.
  You know, sometimes you listen to the head of the FCC and you get the 
sense that somehow he is saying that the internet either is broken or 
is about to break--that some horrendous set of problems are going to 
ensue without his ill-advised ideas. The fact is that the internet is 
not broken. The Federal Communications Commission is not trying to help 
consumers by rolling back net neutrality protections. They are doing it 
to make it easier for the big cable companies to be in a position to 
shove out true and real competition. That, I would say to my friend 
Senator Markey and my friend from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, who has been 
championing these efforts in the Commerce Committee, is what this is 
really all about.
  You know, the reality is that the internet is now the shipping lane 
for the 21st century. It is that place--a global marketplace--where you 
have the free exchange of ideas, and today's rules protect that 
shipping lane of the 21st century--the freedom for Americans and people 
worldwide to compete online. It exists so that the powerful interests, 
those who have the deepest pockets, do not go out and swallow the 
little guys up every single time.
  Now, as we talk about net neutrality and why it is so essential for 
jobs, free speech, political engagement, education, economic 
opportunity, and better competition, there are really just three 
points. First, protecting the free and open internet under Title II of 
the Telecommunications Act, in my view, is the best way to proceed at 
this point. It is the only way, at present, to ensure a free and open 
internet, and that is, by rejecting this idea that somehow the internet 
is broken and we should upend the current rules. The Federal 
Communications Commission should not only leave the current net 
neutrality rules in place, they ought to aggressively move against 
companies that violate those rules. As my friends from Massachusetts 
and Hawaii know, there is not exactly a lot of evidence that the 
Federal Communications Commission is doing that either.

  Net neutrality, in short, protects the internet's ability to give a 
fair shake to every single person in America and literally in the world 
with a good idea--they don't have to have money. They don't have to 
have lobbyists. They don't have to have PACs. All they have to have 
with net neutrality and the internet is an idea to compete with the 
establishment. This level playing field is a prerequisite for 
protecting free speech.
  A level regulatory playing field means that these powerful 
interests--the cable companies, specifically--can't pick winners and 
losers because of their political or personal views. Our colleague, 
Senator Franken of Minnesota, has correctly said that net neutrality is 
the First Amendment issue of our time, and I think he is spot-on on 
that matter.
  Finally, because there really hasn't been the competition in the 
broadband marketplace that would best serve the consumer and the 
public, what you should definitely do is operate under the theory that 
you need strong rules. We all know that too many people don't have a 
choice when it comes to a broadband provider; often it comes down to 
Comcast or nothing. Without real competition, America needs strong net 
neutrality rules to prevent Comcast or AT&T from basically tossing 
consumer choice and free speech in the trash can to rake in even more 
profits.
  A lack of broadband competition and consumer choice is clearly a 
problem you cannot solve by giving the big cable companies more 
freedom--freedom to run at will through the marketplace.
  So the question now is--and I think my friend from Massachusetts just 
touched on it--what happens now? What happens now is making the 
American people aware that this is the time for their voices to be 
heard.
  The fact is, there are two notions of political change in America. 
Some people think it starts in Washington, DC, and in government 
buildings in various capitals and then trickles down to the grassroots.
  Senator Schatz, Senator Markey, and I take a different view with 
respect to how you bring about political change in America. It is not 
top-down; it is bottom-up. It is bottom-up as Americans from all walks 
of life weigh in with their legislators, weigh in with the Federal 
Communications Commission. My guess is that pretty soon--probably 
tomorrow--the future of the internet is going to be in the hands of the 
Federal Communications Commission.
  I just want to wrap up my remarks by talking about how important it 
is for the American people to go online to the Federal Communications 
Commission website and file a comment, and visit my website--
wyden.senate.gov--where you can get more information.
  I will close with this: I think my friends--certainly Senator Markey 
and Senator Schatz--may have heard this. I want to talk about the fight 
against internet piracy because we are all against internet piracy. No 
one is in favor of that kind of thievery, but we didn't think it made 
sense to damage the architecture of the internet--the domain name 
systems and the fundamental principles by which the internet operates--
in the name of fighting piracy.
  When there was a bill with a shortsighted view--it was called SOPA 
and PIPA--and it was introduced, scores and scores of Senators 
supported it immediately. I put a hold on this bill. I put a public 
hold on the bill. I chaired a little subcommittee of the Senate Finance 
Committee. There were close to a majority of Senators already in 
support of this flawed bill. We began to talk to those around the 
country who understand what it really means if you damage the internet 
and its architecture for a shortsighted and, in this case, unworkable 
approach.
  Everybody thought we didn't have a chance of winning. There was very 
close to a majority in the Senate actually cosponsoring it. So a vote 
was scheduled on whether to lift my hold on this bill, the flawed PIPA 
and SOPA bill.
  Four days before the vote was to take place on whether to lift my 
hold, 15 million Americans emailed, texted, called, went to community 
meetings. They went out all across the country. Mind you, these 15 
million Americans were focused and spent more time online in a week 
than they did thinking about their U.S. Senator in a couple of years.
  They said this defies common sense. We are not for internet piracy, 
but don't destroy the internet.

[[Page S2992]]

  My hope is, once again, with the odds stacked against our side--the 
odds stacked against Senator Schatz, Senator Markey, and all the 
Senators who have been willing, on our side, to speak up against these 
powerful interests that really would like to gut net neutrality--that 
those who understand what the freedom of the net is all about, what it 
means to have this ability to communicate that is so vital to people 
without clout and power, will take the fight for the consumer, for the 
man and woman who just want a fair shake when they get an idea. My hope 
is, just as they did a few years ago in blocking this ill-advised SOPA 
and PIPA bill, that those who care so much about freedom and a fair 
shot for everybody will, once again, take the fight to the Federal 
Communications Commission, knowing that their voices can make a 
difference. They have made a difference in the past.
  It is a real pleasure to be with Senator Markey and Senator Schatz.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, as the Senator from Oregon remembers so 
well, when he and I started in Congress, there was one telephone 
company.
  Did we have innovation? Well, we had a company winning Nobel Prizes 
in basic research. Did we see applied research out there, new 
technologies? No. We saw a black rotary dial phone. So AT&T had to get 
broken up so there would be new companies, new competition, new 
technologies.
  Ultimately, because of all of that effort toward deregulation to let 
more companies in, more innovations, we now have devices that we walk 
around with, which are just minicomputers in our pocket. We have 
millions of apps that people sitting in any city and town all across 
our country can develop and get online to try to make a few bucks.
  Ultimately, it is still that old AT&T mentality: How do we shut it 
down? How do we close it down? How do we make it hard for the 
entrepreneur, hard for the innovator, hard for that new idea to get out 
there that makes it more productive, easier for the American people to 
be able to have access to these new programs?
  I agree with the Senator from Oregon that this is a pivotal time in 
our country's entrepreneurial history. We have learned this lesson over 
and over again. The Senator has been a great leader on these issues, 
and I just want to compliment him on that. I compliment the Senator 
from Hawaii for his leadership on the issue.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. In 
fact, I have to leave the floor right now to wrap up business for a 
very important Finance Committee meeting tomorrow. It is a markup where 
we are going to be looking at ways as part of the transformation of 
Medicare--what I call updating the Medicare guarantee--that some of the 
technologies my friend from Massachusetts talked about are going to be 
available to seniors.
  I know our friend from New Hampshire has arrived, and she has been a 
very strong advocate of principles of net neutrality.
  I yield the remainder of my time to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I thank my friends from Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii for their 
leadership on this very important issue concerning net neutrality.
  Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Federal 
Communications Commission's proposal to undermine critical net 
neutrality rules, which would change the internet as we know it today.
  Tomorrow the FCC will vote on a notice of proposed rulemaking, which 
begins the unraveling of commonsense consumer protections that enhance 
our online experience. Net neutrality is a concept that requires 
internet service providers to provide equal access to online 
applications and content. It prevents internet service providers from 
discriminating against content and content providers, discrimination 
that can take the form of making certain web pages, certain 
applications, or videos load faster or load slower than others.
  Net neutrality is integral to promoting innovation, supporting 
entrepreneurs and small businesses, and encouraging economic growth in 
my home State of New Hampshire and across the entire Nation.
  In March, Washington Republicans, with the support of the Trump 
administration, voted to take away critical online privacy protections 
giving ISPs the green light to collect and use a consumer's online data 
without the consumer's consent. So it is no surprise that what 
corporate ISPs want next is to remove baseline protections that allow 
even the softest voice to be heard or the smallest of businesses to 
thrive against larger competitors.
  I have heard time and again from Granite Staters who call and write 
to my office that we must fight to protect the net neutrality rules, 
rules that create an even playing field and protect consumers from 
unfair practices.
  What we are seeing here in Washington is different. At the request of 
big cable companies and internet service providers, the Republican-
controlled FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, is taking aim at commonsense 
consumer protections that could change the free and open internet as we 
know it. As rationale, Chairman Pai has claimed that since net 
neutrality rules went into effect 2 years ago, investments in U.S. 
broadband companies have dropped to historically low levels.
  Quite the opposite has occurred. Since the rules went into effect, 
AT&T's share price has gone up more than 20 percent, Comcast has 
increased 26 percent, and several ISPs have reassured investors that 
net neutrality would have no impact on their broadband investments. So 
this is just another ``gimme'' to big cable and industry stakeholders 
who want to put profits ahead of customer service and consumer 
protections.
  In New Hampshire, innovative, small businesses are the backbone of 
our economy, creating good jobs, stimulating economic growth, and net 
neutrality has been integral to their success. More than 1,000 
startups, innovators, investors, and entrepreneurial support 
organizations from across the country, including the company Digital 
Muse, in New Hampshire, sent a letter to Chairman Pai urging him to 
protect net neutrality rules. I plan to fight to do just that.
  In giving entrepreneurs a level playing field to turn an idea into a 
thriving business that reaches a global audience, net neutrality helps 
promote innovation and boost economic growth. By dismantling net 
neutrality rules, internet service providers will be allowed to force 
small service providers to pay to play online, causing instability to 
startups and entrepreneurs across the Nation who might not be able to 
afford such fees. Companies like Digital Muse should be able to compete 
based on the quality of their goods and services, not on their ability 
to pay tolls to internet service providers.
  Net neutrality isn't just good for startups and entrepreneurs, it has 
also created a platform for traditionally underrepresented voices, 
including women and minorities, to be heard and, as important, to add 
to our economic strength. Last week, my friend Senator Cantwell and I 
sent a letter with several of our colleagues to Chairman Pai 
highlighting the importance of net neutrality to women and girls across 
the country. An open internet serves as a platform to elevate voices 
that are underrepresented or marginalized in traditional media, an 
experience many women in the field know all too well.
  When turned away from traditional media outlets, women can turn to 
the internet as an autonomous platform to tell their stories in their 
own voices thanks to the vast array of media platforms enabled by net 
neutrality. Between 2007 and 2016, while the total number of business 
firms in America increased by 9 percent, the total number of women-
owned firms increased by 45 percent, a rate five times the national 
average. This growth in women-owned business mirrors the emergence of 
the free and open internet as a platform for economic growth. Net 
neutrality has been essential to the growth of women-owned, innovative 
businesses, ensuring them the opportunity to compete with more 
established brands and content.
  In addition to empowering women economically, an open internet has 
the

[[Page S2993]]

ability to empower all citizens civically. The National Women's March 
in January brought together hundreds of thousands of people to raise 
their voices and organize in marches across the country and around the 
world, largely through online activism. The Women's March and the many 
other marches that have followed since January demonstrate how an open 
internet can serve as a powerful mechanism for civic engagement and 
strengthening communities. The open and free internet is too powerful 
of a tool for civic engagement and social and economic mobility--
especially for our underrepresented populations--to take away. Strong 
net neutrality rules are absolutely essential. They protect against 
content discrimination, they prevent internet toll lanes, they allow 
the FCC adequate room for oversight, and they require reasonable 
transparency from internet service providers. The rules also provide 
stability to our economy, to our entrepreneurs, and our innovative 
small businesses--enterprises that are integral to New Hampshire's and 
America's economic success.
  I will continue fighting to ensure that our regulatory environment is 
one that spurs innovation, fosters economic growth, supports our small 
businesses, and allows the next young person with a big idea to 
prosper. I strongly oppose rules that would undermine net neutrality, 
and I hope the FCC listens throughout the comment period to concerns 
from Granite Staters and Americans who feel the same way.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I see that my friend from Minnesota is here and wonder if he would 
like to speak to this issue as well.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I would.
  Ms. HASSAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise to discuss the Trump administration's effort to undo the open 
internet order. Together we must protect net neutrality and ensure that 
all content on the internet receives equal treatment from broadband 
providers regardless of who owns the content or how deep their pockets 
are.
  Two years ago, American consumers and businesses celebrated the FCC's 
landmark vote to preserve the free and open internet by reclassifying 
broadband providers as common carriers under title II of the 
Communications Act. The vote came after the SEC received nearly 4 
million public comments, the vast majority of which urged the agency to 
enact strong rules protecting net neutrality.
  Consumers urged the Commission to protect their unfettered and 
affordable access to content. A wide range of advocacy organizations 
pressed the Commission to ensure that broadband providers couldn't pick 
and choose which voices and ideas would actually reach consumers. Small 
and large businesses alike asked that the internet remain an open 
marketplace where everyone can participate on equal footing, free from 
discrimination by companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.
  The FCC responded by establishing rules that are strong, clear, and 
enforceable; rules that prevent broadband providers from blocking or 
throttling lawful online content, and rules that stop providers from 
charging websites for access to fast lanes.
  Perhaps, most importantly, the FCC implemented these rules within the 
time-tested legal framework that allows the agency to respond to 
challenges to net neutrality that arise in the future. Following the 
commonsense path I have long urged, the FCC recognized that broadband 
access is a title II service--a classification that the DC Circuit has 
upheld and had previously signaled was necessary in order to establish 
strong rules.
  The FCC's vote to implement strong net neutrality rules was an 
important victory for American consumers and for American business, and 
that victory demonstrated the overwhelming power of grassroots activism 
and civic participation. In 2014, millions of Americans from across the 
political spectrum organized to ensure that their voices were heard, 
and in the process, they redefined civic engagement in our country, but 
in the 21st century, that kind of participation requires an open 
internet, a place where people can freely share information and engage 
in meaningful public discourse.
  Because of net neutrality, a handful of multibillion-dollar companies 
cannot bury sites offering alternative viewpoints or attempt to control 
how users get their information. Because of net neutrality, people from 
across the Nation can connect with each other, share their ideas on the 
internet, and organize a community effort.
  I have always called net neutrality the free speech issue of our time 
because it embraces our most basic constitutional freedoms. 
Unrestricted public debate is vital to the functioning of our 
democracy. Now, perhaps more than ever, the need to preserve a free and 
open internet is abundantly clear. That is why I am so concerned about 
Chairman Pai's proposal to gut the strong net neutrality rules we 
fought so hard for.
  Tomorrow, the FCC will vote officially to initiate a proceeding to 
undo the open internet order, but, importantly, American consumers and 
businesses will once again have an opportunity to make their voices 
heard. I hope the American people will contact the FCC, that they will 
remain engaged and willing to speak up, and that they will continue to 
use the internet to spread ideas, organize support, and ultimately 
counter the deep-pocketed ISPs and the politicians who seek to 
undermine net neutrality.
  Two years ago, the best principles of our democracy won out. I do 
believe that with the same energy and determination that has gotten us 
this far, net neutrality supporters can garner another win for the 
American people.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for this opportunity to speak.
  I yield to my good friend from the State of Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank Mr. Franken for his leadership on 
this issue. He is a person who understands the content industry and has 
been a fierce defender of people's ability to view content online, 
people's ability to express themselves online, and understands that a 
fair and open media marketplace is central to our democracy.
  I want to address one assertion that was made by the proponents of 
repealing net neutrality; that is, that somehow the investment climate 
under net neutrality was harmed. They say there is some reason to 
believe that under net neutrality, the investment climate was 
diminished, but the Internet Association published research today that 
addressed this very issue, and their findings show that since 2015, 
when the rules went into place, telecommunications investment has 
actually increased. ISPs and their consumers are enjoying historically 
low production costs and innovation has increased. Free Press also 
published a report on this question earlier this week, and they found 
that investment in broadband by publicly traded companies actually went 
up after net neutrality went into place. Here is what the research 
director at the Free Press had to say: ``If investment is the FCC's 
preferred metric, then there is only one possible conclusion--net 
neutrality and Title II are a smashing success.''
  Here is the point. The internet is not broken. There are parts of the 
economy that are not working well. We struggle with manufacturing. We 
need to invest in infrastructure. We have a trade imbalance. We have a 
higher education system that is not working for everybody. We need to 
do more work in these areas, but the part of our economy that is 
working great for consumers, for entrepreneurs, for the private sector, 
for engaged citizens is the internet itself. Tomorrow, the FCC is going 
to endeavor to break it.
  Before I hand it over to someone who has been working on these issues 
for many years, I want to point out that nobody would have anticipated 
that the Affordable Care Act would still be on the books because of 
unprecedented online and inperson organizing.
  The FCC has a very unique process where there is going to be a 3-
month public comment period. The statute actually allows the public to 
go and weigh in on what they think. The last time this happened when 
net neutrality principles were being established, 3.8 million people 
commented. So far, before they even take their first formal action, 
there are 1.6 million people who have already commented. My guess is, 
by the time tomorrow is

[[Page S2994]]

done--maybe the next day--we will be well into the 2 to 3 million 
comment range, and they still have 3 months to go. Understand the power 
in our democracy still resides with the people. Somebody who has been 
working in the trenches on this issue and many consumer issues for a 
very long time is my great colleague, the senior Senator from 
Connecticut, and I will yield to him as I realize I think I am standing 
at his dais.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague and 
friend Senator Schatz for his extraordinary leadership in this area 
that has brought us to the floor. I am proud to speak against the 
Federal Communications Commission Chairman's proposed order that is in 
fact slated for a vote at the open commission meeting tomorrow morning. 
That vote would undo the open internet order.
  What is at stake here is, really, First Amendment rights to free 
speech. Those rights are threatened. Net neutrality has never been more 
important. Allowing broadband providers to block or discriminate 
against certain content providers is a danger to free speech and the 
freedom of our press. These principles are fundamental to our 
democracy. We should safeguard them by stopping this proposed repeal of 
the open internet order.
  The internet's astonishing economic success is due to its being open 
and the access that it provides as an open platform. Anyone with a good 
idea can connect with consumers. Anyone who wants to reach across the 
globe to talk to others or to pitch and promote ideas and products 
encounters a level playing field, and that ought to be the reality.
  On February 25, 2015, the FCC adopted the open internet order to 
preserve that open nature of the internet. The order, essentially, 
embodies three rules--no blocking, no throttling, no paid 
prioritization. Those principles are now at risk. In fact, they are in 
grave jeopardy. Those principles guarantee people, within the bounds of 
the law, access to different web content regardless of the political 
views expressed and regardless of the wealth of a site. They assure 
that the internet is open--that it is not a walled garden for wealthy 
companies. A lot is at stake here, and consumers and others should 
prevail because their interests are, ultimately, what is involved.
  Ultimately, the Administrative Procedure Act requires, in my view, 
that Chairman Pai prove, through a fact-based docket, that something 
has significantly changed in the market since the open internet rule 
was established in February of 2015. Without that change in facts, the 
decimation of this rule cannot be justified. We cannot allow Chairman 
Pai to succeed in this plan to gut neutrality at the behest of moneyed 
internet service providers. Chairman Pai's proposal, if it succeeds 
tomorrow, will deprive the American people, startups, and businesses of 
important bright-line net neutrality rules. For that reason, I will 
fight it, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.