[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 86 (Thursday, May 18, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Page S3027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              The Internet

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today to point out that the Federal 
Communications Commission is voting today, perhaps this morning, to 
begin the process to roll back a regulatory framework that should never 
have been imposed on broadband service providers in the first place. 
Like many of my colleagues, I am glad the FCC is working to restore the 
``light touch'' regulatory framework that has allowed the internet to 
thrive since its creation.
  This action sets the stage for Congress to then put a legislative 
solution in place that strikes the right balance between providing 
regulatory oversight on the one hand and giving the broadband industry 
the flexibility it needs to innovate and expand on the other hand.
  We should not rely on a classification that was devised during the 
depression era. There should be 21st-century rules for 21st-century 
technology. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees 
internet issues, I look forward to the task ahead. Keeping the internet 
free and open is a goal shared by most of us and by many of my friends 
on the other side of the aisle. A bipartisan solution can help provide 
long-term certainty for both consumers and broadband providers.
  This certainty will be essential to our efforts to close the digital 
divide and remove barriers to internet connectivity that exist in 
Mississippi and around the United States. The online experience we 
enjoy today and the revolutionary advances of the internet over the 
past quarter century did not happen because of the heavy hand of the 
Federal Government.
  These advances happened because the Federal Government stayed out of 
the way, supporting a ``light touch'' regulatory framework where 
innovation, competition, and investment could truly survive and thrive.
  This was the framework that existed under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations until 2015, when politics got in the way. 
With a party-line vote, the FCC that year decided to adopt a utility-
style framework, as I said, resulting from legislation devised during 
the depression. It classified broadband service as a common carrier 
under title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
  A utility-style framework for telephones may have worked during the 
Bell telephone monopoly of the depression era, but that does not mean 
it is a right fit now. Nor does it mean we should adopt a completely 
hands off regulatory approach, which I would also oppose. The goal of 
net neutrality, which is designed to prevent internet providers from 
prioritizing some legal content over others has not gone away. But we 
know that handing over broad control of the internet to Washington is 
also not the answer.
  FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has outlined some of the reasons for this, 
including the impact of title II regulations on big and small internet 
service providers. If we do not give providers the confidence to invest 
in better services and better infrastructure, it could limit consumers' 
options and services. This could also affect our efforts to close the 
digital divide, to bring the digital world to our rural communities in 
Alabama and Mississippi. Underserved communities could remain 
underserved.

  Without broadband access, these communities could lose out on 
critical jobs, economic development, and many other opportunities borne 
out of the thriving internet economy.
  At the end of the day, we need to be asking: What do Americans want 
and what do Americans need? They need broadband that is accessible, 
affordable, fast, and reliable. They want to be able to choose the 
services and content that best meets their needs.
  These are the priorities that need to be kept in mind as the FCC 
works today and as lawmakers work to strike a balance between 
regulatory oversight and free market productivity.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.