[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.