[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 192 (Monday, November 27, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7324-S7325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, last year, Chairman Pai, of the Federal 
Communications Commission, threatened to take a weed whacker to the 
FCC's net neutrality rules. On December 14, Chairman Pai and the FCC 
are likely to make good on that promise. Last week, they issued their 
plan. They are quite proud of it. Chairman Pai is very proud of their 
plan. They got that done last week. Then, on December 14, they are 
going to execute their plan to execute the net neutrality rules of our 
country.
  Net neutrality applies the principles of nondiscrimination to the 
internet world, ensuring that broadband providers--America's internet 
gatekeepers--do not block, slow down, or prioritize internet traffic. 
In 2015, the FCC correctly adopted the open internet order, enshrining 
these net neutrality principles into law, but now net neutrality and 
the free and open internet--this diverse, dynamic, democratic 
platform--are under attack.
  Here is what Chairman Pai is proposing. No. 1, he would gut the rule 
against blocking. What does that mean? It means an internet service 
provider could block any website it wants. It could block something 
just because it decided to. That includes a website of a competing 
service or a website with a contrary political view. Whatever they 
want, they can block. The biggest companies--Comcast, AT&T--they can 
just block it.
  No. 2, Chairman Pai would gut the rule against throttling. What does 
that mean? That means the internet service provider could slow down any 
website it wants.
  No. 3, Chairman Pai would gut the rule banning paid prioritization. 
What does that mean in easy-to-understand language? That means the 
internet service provider could charge websites for an internet fast 
lane--meaning those websites would load quicker, while websites that 
can't afford the internet ``EZ pass'' would be stuck on a gravel path, 
taking more time to load and frustrating consumers with long buffering 
times.
  No. 4, Chairman Pai would gut the forward-looking general conduct 
rule. What does that mean in easy-to-understand language? That means 
whatever discriminatory conduct ISPs think of next in the coming months 
or years would be perfectly legal.
  No. 5, Chairman Pai would create an unregulated interconnection 
market. What does that mean, an unregulated interconnected market? In 
plain English, it means the Federal Communications Commission would 
lose authority to oversee places where the internet service providers 
connect to the internet and extract fees.
  No. 6, Chairman Pai would prevent States and localities from adopting 
their own net neutrality protections. If you live in Massachusetts or 
you live in California or you live in Alabama,

[[Page S7325]]

your State can't give you any protections. They can't say: Here's how 
we want the internet to be operating.
  What will replace these enforceable net neutrality rules? Nothing. 
Chairman Pai will leave it to the internet service providers--to the 
big companies we all subscribe to--to regulate themselves. We will just 
put them on the honor system. We know the broadband industry--your 
cable, your wireless or telecommunications provider--cannot regulate 
themselves. They struggle to even show up on time to install or fix 
your service. Do we really trust the broadband industry to resist 
leveraging their internet gatekeeper role and putting their online 
competitors at an unfair disadvantage? Of course not.
  What is Chairman Pai's silver lining in light of gutting all of these 
rules? He has proposed to keep some transparency rules, requiring the 
internet service providers--these broadband behemoths--to disclose 
their practices to consumers. What good is transparency when most 
Americans have little or no choice for high-speed broadband access? 
After all, 62 percent of Americans have one choice for high-speed fixed 
broadband. If a household's only choice for high-speed broadband is 
transparent about its plans to set up internet fast and slow lanes, the 
consumer has two choices: accept the internet provider's terms or live 
without the internet. That is not a real choice at all. People are not 
going to be living without the internet in the 21st century. You are 
going to pay whatever that company tells you, you are going to pay.
  It is clear that most Americans do not want what the FCC is 
proposing. A record number of people--over 22 million--made their 
voices heard at the FCC. Americans know the internet--the world's 
greatest platform for commerce and communications--is at stake. 
Consider that, today, essentially every company is an internet company. 
In 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds invested in this 
country went toward internet-specific and software companies. That is 
$25 billion of investment. 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.
  We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless 
technologies is high. Job creation is high. Venture capital investment 
in online startups is high. With these net neutrality protections in 
place, there is no problem that needs fixing, but under Chairman Pai's 
plan, broadband providers get exactly what they want--an unregulated 
Wild West where they can set up internet fast and slow lanes.
  Chairman Pai proposes to have the FCC completely abdicate its 
rightful role to oversee telecommunications networks under title II of 
the Communications Act. Chairman Pai claims that the FTC--the Federal 
Trade Commission--provides a sufficient backstop to discriminatory 
behavior by the big broadband companies. That is simply not true.
  Under the Federal Trade Commission regime, the big broadband barons 
would establish their own net neutrality policies, and if the internet 
service provider wants to block websites, slow down the competitors' 
content, or charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their 
customers, they will be free to do so. That is because the Federal 
Trade Commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its 
own net neutrality policies, but what if the internet service provider 
has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes? 
There is nothing the Federal Trade Commission can do about it because 
the broadband baron told you what they are going to do. They were 
transparent about what they were going to do, but you just have no 
recourse whatsoever going to the Federal Trade Commission. It is a 
false promise of protection that Chairman Pai is presenting.
  The only way to protect a free and open internet is with strong net 
neutrality rules of the road, not voluntary guidelines. Chairman Pai's 
proposal would put the future of a free and open internet in the hands 
of big corporations and the powerful few at the expense of ordinary 
consumers all across our country. Our consumers will be tipped upside 
down and have money shaken out of their pockets because they will not 
have the protection of net neutrality provisions that are now the law 
but are soon to be wiped off of the law.
  The Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on our core 
protections: the Affordable Care Act, the Paris climate accord, the 
Clean Power Plan. Now Trump's Federal Communications Commission has net 
neutrality in their sights. For all of those who rely on the free and 
open internet--whether it is for commerce, education, healthcare, 
entertainment--I urge you all to rise up and create a firestorm of 
opposition to this assault on net neutrality. This goes to the 
fundamental principles of nondiscrimination online. This is the 
greatest engine for commercial job development our country has ever 
seen. It is the engine for new companies to be started. It is the way 
in which young people are able to disrupt established companies, to 
take new concepts that create jobs but also benefit consumers across 
our country. That is the opportunity this represents, and it is also a 
powerful force for democracy, for everyone's voice being heard equally. 
That is what net neutrality is about. That is what the Trump-Chairman 
Pai Federal Communications Commission is about to end, and that is why 
we must fight. That is why I am so proud to be standing as part of this 
effort with our great ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Bill Nelson from the State of Florida, because this is a fight worth 
having.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, one cannot say it much better than the 
Senator from Massachusetts has said it. Everyone has come to expect a 
free and open internet--one that does not charge more for certain 
content and charge less for favorite content. It is supposed to be 
free. It is supposed to be open. It should be balanced. Hopefully, 
since it seems that the Pai regime is, in fact, going down this road, 
there will be immediate lawsuits that will be very time-consuming. At 
the end of the day, sometime in the future, there may be an opportunity 
for a legislative solution, but it has to be a balanced solution that 
protects the right of the public to a free and open internet.