[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 12, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3943-S3948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Net Neutrality
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon with
my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii, who has been leading our efforts
on coordinating a very loud and resounding voice on trying to stop the
FCC from running over an open internet, and I thank him for his
organization for today. I know we will be joined by our colleague,
Senator Wyden from Oregon--and perhaps the other Senator from Oregon
and several others--to talk about this important issue.
We are here today to try to draw attention to one of those important
economic issues before us: the need to preserve an open internet with
strong net neutrality laws.
We are facing a pivotal moment in the fight to preserve an open and
fair internet. A strong and open internet is, without question, one of
the great innovations of our time and one of the great job creators of
our time. Yet the Trump administration stands poised to undo the
bedrock principle of net neutrality in the face of evidence it would
undermine our economy and undermine future job growth.
The FCC has announced its intention to go against the demands of 5
million American consumers and reverse what is an existing rule so that
big cable companies and telecom providers can erect toll lanes; that
is, if you want fast internet speed, you have to pay more. This would
threaten the fundamental nature of our internet and the innovation
economy.
Last week, FCC Commissioner Clyburn and I held a townhall meeting on
net neutrality in Seattle. More than 300 people attended, and not one
was in favor of paying higher prices to their cable company for worse
or inhibited internet services.
Many people shared their personal stories about how an internet with
toll lanes would affect them negatively. We heard from many small
businesses and startups that they were afraid of losing business
because they might have to charge higher prices to their customers if
these important protections were reversed.
I heard from people with health problems and their concerns about
health emergencies while away from home. The absence of net neutrality
rules would mean that a doctor in their small hometown could not get
critical information to the medical practitioners who are dealing with
a patient in an emergency so that they could get important lifesaving
treatments. Whether you are a doctor examining a patient via
telemedicine or in an emergency room in Seattle or a student in a rural
community trying to access the
[[Page S3944]]
internet to get information, take a test or do research, a fast
connection is necessary. Your ability to have a fast connection is
something you are more than just a little concerned about. Being
artificially slowed down in favor of big companies that buy faster
lanes would turn our economy in the wrong direction.
Our economy is in the midst of a massive technological
transformation. As technology advances, incredible opportunities and
new jobs are created. Every business plan of every startup relies on
the ability to get content to consumers.
Largely as a result of innovation and the proliferation of hundreds
of startups in the United States, the internet economy today is now
worth $966 billion and accounts for almost 6 percent of our U.S. GDP.
This is a higher percentage of the U.S. economy than many other
industry sectors, including construction, mining, utilities,
agriculture, and education.
Net neutrality--meaning you have an open internet that is not
artificially slowed down unless you pay a ransom--is important for
small businesses and startups and entrepreneurs who rely so much now on
an integrated business model where internet access, marketing, and
advertising their products and services to reach customers is critical.
We need an open internet. We need it to foster job creation,
competition, and innovation for the almost 3 million Americans workers
who already rely on the internet economy today.
When net neutrality was implemented a year-plus ago, we were
protecting and making sure there was no uneven playing field.
Basically, because of the regulations, we were able to help small
businesses and entrepreneurs thrive. But our internet providers are
internet gatekeepers, and without net neutrality, they would seize upon
the opportunity to change that.
One slice of the internet economy--the app economy, which is growing
every single day--consists of everyone who makes money and has a job,
thanks to mobile apps powered by an open internet. Today, 1.7 million
Americans have jobs because of this economy. Nearly 92,000 of those
jobs are in my State of Washington.
Over the past 5 years, the app economy jobs have grown at an annual
rate of 30 percent. I don't know of another sector that is growing that
fast. The average growth rate for all other jobs is about 1.6 percent.
By 2020, the app economy could grow to over $100 billion. Why is this
so important? Because we all know that these various applications and
apps make our lives better. They make it easier. In a busy world, they
are helping us do the things that are so important to us with more ease
and more certainty.
The internet economy is dynamic and supercharged in creating job
growth. This phenomenon of economic growth trajectory would not be
possible without the internet as a platform for economic activity. This
is why it is so important that the FCC not, in the dark of night, put
down a rule without public comment to try to stop and change this
direction that has already been protected by past FCC Commissioners.
This is why my colleagues and I are here today on a date when everybody
is trying to raise awareness--because the FCC could act as early as
August 18 to try to change these rules.
It is important that we oppose any new FCC actions trying to
dismantle an open internet. We need to make sure we are talking about
the harm to consumers, the harm to innovation, and the fact that
internet speeds for American consumers are important and consumers
shouldn't be burdened by a cable company holding you at ransom to pay
more just to get faster speeds.
Consumers are already struggling with high prices. Cable bills rose
39 percent from 2011 to 2015, eight times the rate of inflation. In
2015, the average consumer cable TV bill was $99 a month; just a year
later, the average consumer cable bill had risen by 4 percent to over
$103. My guess is a lot of people listening to this now are probably
thinking, boy, where are we today?
One of the most popular arguments by the enemies of an open internet
is that it suppresses investment and leaves consumers with poor
broadband infrastructure. That is a false claim. Data shows that
investment by publicly traded cable companies and big telephone
companies was 5 percent higher during the 2-year period following our
protection of an open internet. Clearly, people are continuing to make
investment.
I want to make sure people understand that we do not want to see a
change in this policy. We do not want to see American consumers run
over by large cable companies that are demanding higher rates. We want
to make sure that we don't end up with a two-tiered internet system--
one for big companies who will pay and pay and pay for faster rates,
and consumers who are left with a very slowed-down, challenging to use
internet, which makes it hard for us to continue to innovate.
I encourage the American consumer to go out and contact the FCC. Yes,
your voice can be heard. The FCC has already received 5 million
comments, and they have until August 17 to hear more. Today, we are
asking everybody in America to say: Please don't slow down my internet
connection. Don't hurt our economy; don't hurt American business.
Invest in innovation, and keep an open internet for the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for
her leadership on tech and technology issues and, in particular, on net
neutrality.
I would like to amend one thing she said. She said that we got about
5 million comments in favor of net neutrality on this question. It is
true. Yesterday we had 5 million and change, but I just checked, and we
are at 6.728 million, and more and more people are weighing in on this
important issue.
As of today, it is important to point out that net neutrality is the
law of the land. We are not asking for a change in the way that the
internet operates. We are asking for the internet, as we know it, to be
preserved.
What does that really mean? It means you have an arrangement with
your ISP. You pay your internet service provider for access to the
internet, and you get the whole internet. Your provider does not get to
decide what you access. You do. Whether it is NBC or ABC, Hulu or
Netflix or Breitbart or Google or Yahoo or Facebook or the New York
Times or RedState or HotAir or whatever you want, you get to go there,
and everything comes down from the internet at whatever speed it comes
down. But without net neutrality, that arrangement could change.
The free and open internet, as we understand it, is a premise of the
way we use the internet. It is a premise of the internet economy. It is
a premise of Silicon Valley. It has now become a premise of car
companies and real estate companies and anybody who does business
online that, of course, you wouldn't have to pay money to an ISP to
make sure your website loads fast enough so that consumers can see it.
But that freedom, that free and open internet, really is in danger.
Here is what is happening: The FCC, the Federal Communications
Commission, is trying to change the internet by ending the net
neutrality rules that were put in place. If they succeed, your ISP will
have the power to stop you from seeing certain kinds of content. They
will be the ones that get to make decisions about what you can access
and how fast--not you. It is a foundational change in the way the
internet operates.
Now, some people--including the internet company lobbyists and their
CEOs--will say: Look, the companies aren't going to change the internet
even if the law goes away. In fact, we are committing to voluntary net
neutrality. That is what they say.
But I want you to think about how likely it is that a publicly traded
company will not at least explore the possibility of different business
models, and here is the problem: There may be opportunities without net
neutrality for them to make more money.
Right now I have basic cable in my apartment. I don't have HBO. Back
in Hawaii I have HBO and the whole deal, but in my apartment here I
have more basic cable. I pay for a certain number of channels. I don't
get access to the entire TV universe. I pay for packages. There is no
reason under the law, should they repeal net neutrality, that
[[Page S3945]]
an ISP couldn't give the liberal package, which you could pay $75 for,
or the conservative package, which you could pay $75 for, or the NBC-
related families package, which you could pay $120 for--or maybe it is
free because it is part of a vertical, which is included in your ISP.
The whole idea is that there is nothing preventing them--except these
net neutrality laws--from deciding whom you get, where you get to
visit, and how fast the downloads come. This is especially important,
of course, in the entertainment space, when we are all streaming TV,
news, movies, and even gaming online so the relationship between the
person who creates the content and you is going to be intermediated by
an ISP.
If you have a great app idea, right now you just have to have a great
app idea. If you have a great website, people can log on to your
website and you are in business. If you have the next great website, if
you have eBay or Craigslist or Amazon, but it is post-net neutrality
and the FCC goes through with this, you will not need a bunch of
engineers but a bunch of lawyers and business sharks to try to
negotiate with the ISP to even get in the door.
Students could have less access to online resources, including online
classes. Realtors would be stopped from using online tools to sell
their homes. Patients might not able to use the internet to communicate
with their doctors or monitor their health. Musicians, photographers,
entrepreneurs will use the tools everybody depends on to make a living
or share their art online.
I was talking to somebody I know in the tech community, and they were
saying that this is a parade of horribles. None of this is going to
come true.
I asked: Why do you think that is true? Why do you think this is just
some apocryphal scenario I am describing? If you were an ISP, why
wouldn't you slice up the internet and sell it for more? If you are the
one controlling the access to it and you are a publicly traded company,
you have no duty to a free and open internet. You have a duty to
maximize shareholder profits.
If your board of directors comes to you and says: You know what, this
whole ``you pay a flat fee and you get the whole internet,'' that is
not the right business model. Look at these areas where ISPs are the
only provider in many communities. The idea that the consumer has a
choice in lots of rural communities, you have only one broadband
provider in the first place.
Why wouldn't a broadband provider slice and dice up the internet and
charge you a la carte? They can get more money for this. It is not that
they are bad people. It is that they are duty bound to maximize
profits.
Today, July 12, is the day of action. The internet is pushing back.
Today we stand up to the FCC so the internet remains free and open. As
we speak--I mean literally as we speak--thousands and thousands of
people across the country by the minute are logging on to the FCC
website to express themselves.
I have to say, this has become a Democratic issue. This has become a
progressive issue, but it wasn't so long ago that people in the
conservative movement were worried about media consolidation and the
conservative movement was saying: Hey, listen, I don't know who is
going to own my media company, but I want to get to my websites to get
my content at whatever rate it comes down. Don't tell me what
information I get to have access to.
Everybody uses the internet. Many people are spending dozens of hours
a week on the internet via their phones, via their television, via
their broadband connection at home, and the innovation economy that
underlies our economic growth is really in jeopardy.
I know it is an arcane process. I know most people probably haven't
even heard of the FCC. To talk about net neutrality and lay all this
jargon on you, it is concerning that the free and open internet is
really in danger. We have this unique opportunity because unlike what
happened a few months ago with consumer privacy, where very quickly
this body reversed a rule that provides for privacy so your broadband
providers can't resell your personal browsing data to a third-party
advertiser or any other company--that happened very quickly and without
any public input.
Here is the really good thing about the FCC process. The statute
provides for public input. We are in a public comment period, and July
17 is the deadline. There is an opportunity for people to let their
voices be heard. The internet should be in the hands of people, not in
the hands of companies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Hawaii, the
Senator from Washington State, and I know the Senator from Oregon is
going to be joining us very soon and taking this long, hot summer day
in Washington and turning up the heat on the Trump administration and
the big broadband companies.
Today the internet is having a protest. More than 80,000 websites are
participating in today's national day of action on net neutrality to
stand up for the fundamental right for a free and open internet.
Today's action involves some of the internet's biggest names:
Netflix, Twitter, Amazon, Snapchat, Mozilla, Yelp, Airbnb. It also
includes many others. My own website and other Democratic Senators and
House Members have joined in today's protests.
Earlier today, right outside on the Capitol lawn, I gathered with
many of my Senate and House colleagues, along with businesses and
advocacy, consumer protection, nonprofit, and political organizations
to send a singular message: We will defend net neutrality.
Net neutrality is the basic principle that says that all internet
traffic is treated equally. It applies the principles of
nondiscrimination to the online world, ensuring that internet service
providers--AT&T, Charter, Verizon, Comcast, among others--do not block,
do not slow down, do not censor or prioritize internet traffic.
Yet today, the internet--this monumental, diverse, dynamic,
democratic platform--is under attack. President Trump and his FCC
Chairman, Ajit Pai, are threatening to disrupt this hallmark of
American innovation and democracy by gutting net neutrality rules. They
have put internet freedom on the chopping block. We are facing a
historic fight.
If Trump's FCC gets its way, a handful of big broadband companies
will serve as gatekeepers to the internet. We cannot let this happen.
That is why millions of Americans are standing up and making sure their
voices are heard at the Federal Communications Commission.
They know the internet--the world's greatest platform for commerce
and communications--is at stake. It is net neutrality that ensures that
those with the best ideas, not merely the best access, can thrive in
the 21st century economy; that a garage-based startup in Malden, MA,
can have the same online reach and scope as a major tech firm in
Silicon Valley.
It is net neutrality that has made the Internet an innovation
incubator and job generator for the entire Nation. It is net neutrality
that has been the internet's chief governing principle since its
inception.
Consider that today essentially every company is an internet company.
In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in the
United States went toward internet-specific and software companies.
That is $25 billion worth of venture capital funding in our country.
Half of all venture capital went into that sector, this innovation
sector that continues to transform not only our own economy but the
whole world's economy. At the same time, to meet America's insatiable
demand for broadband internet, U.S. broadband and telecommunications
industry companies invested more than $87 billion in capital
expenditures in 2015. That is the highest rate of annual investment in
the last 10 years by the broadband companies.
We have hit a sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless
technologies is high. Job creation is high. Venture capital investment
in online startups is high. That is what we want. We want both the
broadband companies and all of these smaller companies--whose names
escape us because there are tens of thousands of them--to have a chance
to coexist and have the innovation continue, even as the large
companies continue to invest in broadband expansion.
[[Page S3946]]
It is the free and open internet that has allowed us to enter a new
phase of the digital revolution--the internet of things era--where our
devices, our appliances, and everyday machines now connect with one
another.
The digital revolution is a global economic engine, and net
neutrality is its best fuel. Taking these rules off the books makes no
sense. With these net neutrality protections in place, there is no
problem that needs fixing. It is working right now perfectly.
In May, Chairman Ajit Pai and the Republican FCC voted to begin a
proceeding that will effectively eliminate net neutrality protections,
allowing a handful of broadband providers to control the internet.
Chairman Pai's proposal would decimate the open internet order and the
net neutrality rules that are protecting the free flow of ideas,
commerce, and communications in our country.
Now the big broadband barons and their Republican allies say we need
a light-touch regulatory framework. Let's be honest. When the broadband
behemoths say ``light touch,'' what they really mean is ``hands off''--
hands off their ability to choose online winners and losers.
We are not fooled when AT&T engages in alternative facts and says
they support net neutrality and today's day of action. They don't
support title II, and they don't support net neutrality. We must shine
light on this kind of corporate deception.
What the broadband providers really want is an unregulated online
ecosystem where they can stifle the development of competing services
that cannot afford an internet easy pass.
Chairman Pai says he likes net neutrality but simply wants to
eliminate the very order that established today's net neutrality rules.
That is like saying you want to have your cake and eat it too. It makes
no sense.
President Trump and his Republican allies are waging an all-out
assault on every front that they can on our core democratic values.
Whether it is healthcare, immigration, climate change, or net
neutrality, they want to end the vital protections that safeguard our
families and hand over power to corporations and special interests. We
know better.
We need to make our voices heard. A political firestorm of opposition
will protect our economy, protect our free speech, protect our
democracy. We must protect net neutrality as a core principle in a
modern 21st century America, in a modern America where the smallest
company online can aspire to reach all 320 million Americans in a
nondiscriminatory way, where the smallest company can raise the capital
in order to accomplish that goal, where the smallest company doesn't
have to ask for permission to be able to innovate in our society, where
the smallest doesn't have to first raise the money to ensure they can
pay to have access to this incredible economic engine of
entrepreneurial expression that has been the internet for this last
generation, where free speech, the First Amendment, this ability to be
able to speak unfettered, uncontrolled by corporate America and whether
or not you can afford to speak, is something that continues to be
protected in our country.
That is what net neutrality is all about. The principles of
nondiscriminatory access is what gave us Google and eBay, Amazon and
Hulu, YouTube and Etsy, Zulily, Wayfair, TripAdvisor, and company after
company that knew they could access every single potential consumer in
our country and could, as a result, raise the capital necessary to
ensure that engine of economic entrepreneurial innovation could be
deployed from their minds in changing fundamentally the economy of our
country and the economy of the world.
In 2017, every company is an internet company. Every company depends
upon free and open access to the internet. That is what we have been
transformed into in just the last 20 years.
I was the Democratic coauthor of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
In 1996, not one home in America had broadband. Can I say that again?
Just 20 years ago, not one home in America had broadband. But we
changed the rules to create this chaotic entrepreneurial world where
all of a sudden all of these companies whose names are now common
household names could be created, transforming our economy.
There is no problem. They are trying to fix a problem that does not
exist.
We need to give the next generation of entrepreneurs the same
opportunity to innovate that the last generation had--not to get
permission, not to ask: Pretty please, may I reach all 320 million
Americans? No, ladies and gentlemen, that is not what this revolution
is about. That is not what young people all across this country--with
brilliant new ideas to further transform our American economy online--
want to have as an obstacle.
What will happen now is you will have an idea, but if you can't raise
the money to pay for this fast-lane broadband access, that is going to
throttle back your ability to be able to move in this agile way that
the internet provides. Instead of agility, it will be hostility that
you will be feeling as an entrepreneur, feeling you can't take the
risk--you are not sure you can reach your customers; you are not sure
you can pay the broadband company--rather than ensuring that you can
reach all these consumers for your revolutionary idea.
This internet day of action we are having across the country is going
to raise from 5 million, to 6 million, to 7 million, to 10 million, to
15 million, to 20 million, the number of Americans who are going to be
saying to the Federal Communications Commission and to the U.S. House
and Senate that something is fundamentally wrong with this FCC and its
potential change of the internet--Open Internet Order.
If they do move, we are going to court. If they do move, we are going
to be taking this all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States
of America because that is how important this issue is. It goes right
to the fundamental nature of what has happened to our economy in the
last 20 years. And that is all it took. We moved from the black rotary
dial phone to a world where everyone is carrying a computer in their
pockets. It happened just like that. It could have happened before
that, but it wasn't possible because the broadband companies didn't
even exist. There were just telephone companies and cable companies
that did not have a vision of the future. Their vision of the future is
a lot like their vision of the past before that law passed, which is,
let's go back to total control by a small handful of companies in our
communications cocktail, rather than thinking of the future, as tens of
thousands, hundreds of thousands of smaller companies can be started up
in dorm rooms and garages across our Nation.
This is a dangerous and harmful plan the FCC has on the books today.
Today's day of internet action will be increasing as each moment goes
by between now and the day they make that decision at the FCC.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to build on the last point my
colleague--a great advocate and champion of net neutrality--made about
the rule of law and about the need to go to court when there is utter
disrespect and contempt for the rule of law, which is reflected in the
prospective plan of the Chairman of the FCC to undo that agency's net
neutrality rules. It reflects an astonishing lack of respect and care
for that agency's rules--in fact, the rules that apply to all agencies
under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Chairman Pai wants to overturn a rule that was established after a
factfinding--an elaborate process of comment and response--without
going through that same process that is required under the
Administrative Procedure Act, a fact-based docket that requires him to
show that something has changed--not a little bit; something
significant has changed--in the market since the Open Internet Order
was established in February 2015. The burden is on the FCC to make that
finding. That finding is impossible, which is why they are avoiding the
attempt to do it.
The fact is, the Open Internet Order was established based on 10
years of evidence about how internet access service provides people
with broadband. It has been upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals
twice over the last year. The thicket of law that the Chairman wants to
simply leap over--it is not within his discretion to do.
[[Page S3947]]
The most recent evidence shows that net neutrality has not inhibited
network investment at all, in contrast to Chairman Pai's claims.
According to statements this year by the internet service providers--
AT&T, in fact, is expanding fiber deployment and calling fiber a growth
opportunity. Comcast is saying that it doubles its network capacity
every 18 to 24 months. Verizon is announcing a new $1 billion
investment in cable. That is why we are here saying we will not and we
cannot allow Chairman Pai to succeed in this plan to gut neutrality at
the behest of big cable companies.
I am proud to speak today in support of the Day of Action to Save Net
Neutrality and against the FCC proposal to undo the Open Internet Order
because it is really a consummate pro-consumer measure. The Open
Internet Order serves the best interests of consumers directly but also
the best interests of competition in promoting innovation, new ideas,
and insights--an open platform that is necessary for innovation and
insights that benefit consumers, as well as the products and services
that companies generally provide.
The Open Internet Order created three bright-line rules: No blocking,
no throttling, and no pay prioritization. These rules apply to both
fixed and mobile broadband service, which protects consumers no matter
how they access the internet, whether on a desktop or a mobile service.
Consumers deserve equal access, an open platform--no walls benefiting
the companies that may want their gardens walled in. The walls are
against consumer interest, and breaking down those walls is what the
open internet rule sought to do.
It also has real First Amendment significance. In one of the most
recently proposed megamergers--AT&T and Time Warner--clearly content,
access, and neutrality are at stake. This merger gives the combined
company, if the merger is approved, both the incentive and the means to
throttle First Amendment expression. There have been reports that the
White House will use this merger, in fact, to throttle the First
Amendment rights of CNN, which is owned by Time Warner. This would be a
direct threat to all First Amendment liberties.
Using antitrust policy and power to diminish or demean the rights of
free expression would be a grave disservice to this country, as well as
the rule of law. That is why I have written to the nominee for the
Department of Justice Antitrust Division chief, the Assistant Attorney
General for Antitrust, Makan Delrahim, and asked for a meeting so he
can ensure us that, in fact, antitrust policy will be independently
enforced, that these reports do not reflect his view or the
administration policy. I want him to assure us that this merger will in
no way be used to influence or impede any media outlet.
But access and an open internet are principles that go beyond the
enforcement of antitrust law; they are principles enforced by the FCC
for the public good. That is why this Day of Action to Save Net
Neutrality is so critically important, because the grassroots movement
here is what will save the day. The grassroots and consumer-driven
impetus to make sure that the internet remains a free and open platform
for consumers and innovators, not a walled garden for wealthy
companies, is what we seek today.
That is why I am proud to stand with other colleagues who have spoken
and to continue this battle and to say to all of our colleagues that we
will go to court, because the rule of law and the Administrative
Procedure Act are not technical, abstruse, arcane, unimportant rules;
they are at the core of fairness and administrative regularity, not
just regulation, the rule of law.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me just
commend my friend from Connecticut on a very thoughtful statement. He
has worked on these issues for many years since his days as attorney
general in Connecticut. He is, in my view, the Senate's best lawyer. So
it is great to have a chance to team up with him and our colleagues.
I think this issue can really be summed up in a sentence, and that is
this: Without net neutrality, you do not have a free and open internet
because the essence of the internet--and I will explain what we have
today--would simply not be the same.
Today--and this is what net neutrality is all about, in a sentence--
after you pay your internet access fee, you get to go where you want,
when you want, and how you want, and everybody is treated the same.
From the most affluent person in America to those who are walking on an
economic tightrope every single day, they all can use the internet to
get access to those fundamental opportunities that are so essential to
increasing the quality of life for our people. This, for example, is
how a young person will have a chance to learn. If they are in a small,
rural community in Colorado, Oregon, or elsewhere, this is how they get
access to the kind of information that affluent kids get, who might
live in Beverly Hills or Palm Beach or in any one of a number of
communities where there are affluent people. This is what puts that
youngster on the same plane as the affluent person. This is how, for
example, those who are searching for jobs can go to the net and quickly
get access to information where they will have a chance to get ahead.
The internet--and a free and open internet--is particularly important
to our startups, the innovators, and the small businesses that we are
all counting on to have a chance to grow big. When you talk,
particularly, to the small tech startups, they will say: Our goal is to
be Google or Facebook. Innovation is what makes it possible to have
those kinds of dreams. If you are starting small, with real net
neutrality, as I have described it, you have the same chance to succeed
as everybody else in America.
Now the challenge here is that very powerful interests--the cable
companies, for example--want to change that. They want to change what I
described as net neutrality. They would like to set up what they call
priority lanes, special lanes, or toll lanes, where, if you pay more,
you can get access to more. You can get access to more content, and you
can get access to data and information more quickly.
What this really does is that it means those other people I was
talking about--that startup trying to come out of the gate and be a
success in the marketplace, students, and people who need information
about healthcare and jobs and the like--are not treated the same way as
the people with the deep pockets. All of a sudden their access to data
and information is going to be different. It might be slower. Maybe
they will not get it at all.
The big powerful interests aren't going to tell everybody in America
that they are against net neutrality. They will not be holding rallies
saying: We have gotten together to oppose net neutrality. They will not
be showing up in Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, or anywhere else and
saying: We are against net neutrality. The reason they can't is because
the public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality, as I have described
it.
They are going to say things like this: They are for net neutrality,
but they just don't want all this government associated with what they
have. They will be for voluntary net neutrality.
I know the Presiding Officer of the Senate has young children as
well. I can tell you that we are about as likely to make voluntary net
neutrality work as we are to get William Peter Wyden, my 9-year-old
son, to voluntarily agree to limit himself to one dessert with his
deciding whether he has met his limit. It is not going to happen.
Voluntary net neutrality isn't that different than what we have had
in a lot of instances before we had real net neutrality. The big cable
companies and others were always looking for dodges and loopholes, and
they found ways to tack on fees and the like because that has always
been their end game. Boy, it is a lawyer's full employment program
because they have the capacity to litigate this.
So this idea that people are going to hear a lot about in the next
few weeks--that they are really for net neutrality, but we will just
make it voluntary--I want people to understand that the history of
those kinds of approaches is not exactly sterling. I think it is about
as likely to be successful as limiting my kid to voluntarily holding
back on dessert.
[[Page S3948]]
I also want to make clear what our challenge is going to be about
because the Federal Communications Commission--Senator Blumenthal
talked about it and others--is going to be making decisions on this
before too long. We know where the votes are. This is going to be a
long battle, but one of the reasons I wanted to come to the floor today
is to say that this is another one of these issues that is going to
show that political change doesn't start in Washington, DC, and then
trickle down to people. It will be bottom-up, as more and more
Americans find out what is at stake here.
A few years back, I would say the Presiding Officer of the Senate--
and I see my colleague from the Finance Committee here, as well--and my
colleagues will remember the PIPA and SOPA bills. These were the bills,
PIPA and SOPA, that were anti-internet bills. As with so much, people
can have a difference of opinion, and the sponsors said: We have to
fight piracy. We have to fight piracy, people ripping everybody off
online. To fight piracy, we will use these two bills to kind of change
the architecture of the internet, particularly the domain name system,
which is basically the phone book of the internet.
I looked at it, and I said: We are all against piracy. We are against
people selling fake Viagra, or whatever it is online, but why would we
want to wreck the architecture of the internet in order to deal with
it? There are other kinds of remedies.
So I put in a bill with a conservative Republican in the other body
to come up with an alternative approach, and I put a hold on PIPA and
SOPA. Here in the Senate, at that time, 44 Senators were cosponsors of
that bill. That is an army--out of the 100, 44 Senators.
Everybody said: You know, Ron is putting a hold on it, and, well, he
is a nice guy and, you know, he is from Oregon.
Everybody smiled, and I said: OK, I understand that you think this is
going to be a slam dunk, but I think I will tell you that you should
know that there are more Americans who spend more time online in a week
than they do thinking about their U.S. Senator in 2 years, and they
aren't going to be happy with a whole bunch of powerful interests
messing with the internet, just as we are doing with this situation
where people want to unravel real net neutrality.
So a vote was scheduled on whether to oppose my hold--in effect, lift
my hold--on this flawed bill, and 4 days before the vote, more than 10
million Americans called, texted, tweeted, and logged in to say to
their Senator: Do not vote to lift Ron Wyden's hold.
About 36 hours after Americans had weighed in, the Senate leadership
called me, not very happy, and said: You won. We are not going to have
a vote. Your hold has prevailed.
I bring this up only by way of saying that it is going to take that
same kind of grassroots uprising for Americans who want to keep real
net neutrality, which is what you have after you pay your internet
access fee, and you get to go where you want, when you want, and how
you want, and everybody is treated equally in those efforts. For all of
us who want to keep that, we need to understand that we are in for a
long battle. We know where the votes are at the Federal Communications
Commission, but that is just the beginning. That is just the beginning.
So now is the time to make your voice heard. Go to
battleforthenet.com so your voices can be heard. Make sure that Donald
Trump's FCC Commissioner knows your view that the internet is better
and stronger with real net neutrality protections. Americans have only
until July 17 to do this.
I have already been speaking out in other kinds of sessions. So I
think I will leave it at that.
I wish to close by saying again that without real strong net
neutrality, which is what we have today, we will not have a free and
open internet for all Americans to enjoy. So I come to the floor to say
this is going to be a long battle. Nobody thought we had a prayer to
win the fight to protect the internet that was PIPA and SOPA, and I am
sure a lot of people are saying that this is another one where the
powerful interests are going to win.
I say to the Senate again: Not so fast. You are going to see the
power of Americans speaking out. I urge all the people of this country
who are following what goes on in the Senate today and in the days
ahead to be part of this effort, because I think if they do, if we show
that political change isn't top-down but bottom-up, it is going to be a
long battle, but we will win, and our country will keep a bedrock
principle of the free and open internet, which is real net neutrality.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Texas.