[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3080-S3081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              The Internet

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal 
Communication Commission's welcome proposal to end utility-style 
regulation of the internet by reversing the 2015 open internet order.
  Anyone who has followed the hyperbolic debate about net neutrality 
has likely heard that the FCC is moving to squelch competition, limit 
consumer choice, raise prices, and perhaps even destroy the internet. 
That is my favorite one. At least that is what some activists and 
crusading late-night comedians claim. But none of this is true--none of 
it.
  Rather, the FCC is reviewing the light-touch regulatory environment 
that, from the outset, facilitated the kind of innovation that produced 
the internet and expanded internet access to millions of Americans over 
the course of many years.
  In order to understand this complicated issue, we need to be honest 
about what led us to where we are today; that is, the FCC's 2015 open 
internet order. The Obama-era FCC claimed that its order implemented 
net neutrality, or the equal treatment of all data over the internet, 
but that isn't quite right. The actual change was far broader than 
that.
  The FCC reclassified broadband internet access service as a title II 
telecommunication service, instead of a title I information service. 
That might sound like a small change, but this soundingly small--some 
might even say soundingly innocuous--change applied a whole host of New 
Deal era regulations that were meant to apply to monopolistic telephone 
companies, monopolistic utility companies, and they applied those to 
the internet.
  It subjected 21st century technology to the same rules that governed 
rotary telephones in the 1930s. Why, then, did the FCC do this? It 
wasn't because a free and open internet was harming Americans. The 
activists and entertainers clamoring for more government control of the 
internet claimed that it was under attack by predatory internet service 
providers but, strangely enough, none of them actually provided 
evidence for that very serious assertion.
  If you are going to make that claim, back it up, point to evidence. 
Instead, they speak about imaginary or hypothetical harms. The 400-page 
order uses words like ``may,'' ``could,'' ``might,'' or ``potentially'' 
not just here and there, not just a few times but several hundred 
times. Nor did the FCC issue the open internet order because Congress 
told it to.
  On the contrary, nearly 20 years ago, our colleague Senator Wyden, 
along with then-Senator John Kerry and others, expressly argued against 
the drastic action that would later be taken by the FCC in 2015. After 
passing the bipartisan Telecommunications Act in 1996, this group of 
Senators affirmed

[[Page S3081]]

the internet's status as a free and open information service, stating 
that ``nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that 
Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and 
other information services or to expand traditional telephone 
regulation to new and advanced services.''
  Finally, the FCC did not intervene because it had evidence of market 
failure. When the FCC issued its order, the internet was still an 
explosive source of growth and innovation throughout America and 
throughout the world--as it had been for decades--when greater and 
greater numbers of Americans gained access to the internet for the 
first time. Perhaps, because of this inconvenient fact, the FCC hardly 
considered the possible economic effects of its regulations. The FCC's 
chief economist at the time went so far as to say the rules were an 
``economics-free zone.''
  What the internet does need is regulatory certainty, which is why I 
recently introduced the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, along with 
several of my colleagues. This bill would fully repeal the FCC's 2015 
internet takeover. More importantly, it would prevent the FCC from 
interfering with the internet in the future unless such actions were 
specifically authorized by Congress.
  We shouldn't stop there. Instead of waiting for regulators and 
activists to find new excuses to restrict the internet, we should open 
it further to extend more choices to American consumers. In other 
words, we should ensure that Federal policy promotes competition.
  As we know from experience, heavy-handed regulations like the FCC's 
order tend to favor large, deep-pocketed companies over startups that 
can't afford an army of lobbyists in Washington. Removing these 
regulatory barriers will allow upstart entrepreneurs to compete with 
incumbents for consumers' loyalty. Those consumers--ordinary Americans 
and their families--will benefit from the improved service and lower 
prices that this kind of competition inevitably creates.
  Most American households currently have access to at least one 
internet service provider. Many have access to two or more, which might 
look like a competitive market exists for those households, but 
regulations can keep these different options from being adequate 
substitutes for one another.
  The government restricts access to valuable resources that could be 
used for high-quality internet services. According to a 2012 report by 
the Obama administration, the Federal Government is sitting on upwards 
of 60 percent of the best radio spectrum, so-called ``beachfront'' 
spectrum, which could be put to use for commercial internet services 
like 5G wireless broadband.
  Meanwhile, excessive permitting, licensing, and environmental impact 
regulations delayed broadband deployment over Federal and public lands, 
especially in the West.
  Finally, the Office of Management and Budget found that private 
parties spend nearly $800 million each year to comply with FCC 
paperwork requirements. The bill for this ends up being paid entirely 
by ordinary American families.
  Thankfully, my colleagues in the Senate have already identified many 
of these problems and have done work to address them. Senators 
Klobuchar and Daines have spent considerable time on policies to 
streamline broadband internet deployment through their ``dig-once'' 
proposals. Senator Heller is a champion for reducing barriers for 
deploying broadband throughout the West. Senators Thune and Nelson, the 
chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
have introduced measures in the past to free up radio spectrum held by 
Federal agencies and organizations.
  These are just a few of the many thoughtful ideas to reduce barriers 
to entry and increase competition, which has the potential to improve 
quality and bring down prices. The bipartisan nature of these policies 
demonstrates a clear understanding that improvements can be made, and 
everyone should be able to agree that more competition is better for 
American consumers, especially those in rural or low-income housing.
  Everyone should also be able to agree that consumers should be 
protected from unfair and deceptive business practices. Thankfully, the 
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission already enforce 
fair rules that protect Americans' enjoyment of a free and open 
internet.
  The combination of competition and strong enforcement of antitrust 
and consumer protections provides the benefits of an innovative 
marketplace while avoiding problems that come from tired, anti-
consumer, outdated regulations like title II and like the 2015 open 
internet order.
  For the sake of American consumers and innovators--not for entrenched 
business interests--I hope to work with partners in the House, Senate, 
and the FCC to promote competition in the technology sector, including 
among internet service providers. If that means underperforming 
companies have to work a little harder for their customers, that is all 
the better, because the end result of lively competition is more 
investment and innovation by businesses, which translates into more 
choices and better service for consumers.
  I encourage my colleagues, regardless of party or ideology, to work 
with me on this project. If they are truly interested in a better 
internet--not just government intrusion and control for its own sake--I 
am sure they can help me identify other barriers to entry to the 
information superhighway.
  For now, a good start to ensure that American consumers and small 
businesses benefit from the internet is to repeal the FCC's 2015 
internet takeover, enforce antitrust, unfair, and deceptive practice 
standards, and encourage competition among internet firms. Only then 
can we guarantee an internet that is free and open for everyone.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.