[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 203 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7982-S7984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Net Neutrality
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, today we are closing in on a critical
decision that will have a lasting impact on the innovation-driven
economy of the United States. The Chairman of the FCC has decided to
repeal a critical consumer protection known as net neutrality. This is
a wrongheaded move. It is misguided. It is being driven by big cable
interests that want to continue to gouge consumers and charge them
more, making sure that consumers either pay or have their internet
lines slowed down.
This decision turns the success of what has been an essential 21st-
century innovation over to those in big corporations, instead of making
sure that Main Street innovators continue to do what they do best. I
don't think the American people want cable companies to be the
gatekeeper on the internet. They want to have the FCC continue to play
a role in making sure that an open internet is there for all, so that
small businesses, entrepreneurs, and innovators can continue to build
on the success of communicating with their consumers and their business
partners without having artificially slowed-down lines.
Who would this impact if the FCC moves forward?
You could say that seniors would be impacted with regard to receiving
their telehealth medicine and that students would be impacted in the
slowing down of their education. Families who access educational tools
for their children could also see charges, and the open highway that
has been so important in making sure that new internet businesses are
started could be impacted.
The No. 1 reason we have to fight this decision--making sure that we
do everything we can to stop the FCC from implementing this rule and
giving consumers the protection of net neutrality--is that it will harm
our internet economy. Last summer we had a townhall meeting about this,
where I heard from many of my constituents. I then sent in many
business cases to Chairman Pai so that he would understand why this
impacts us so much.
Let's make sure that we understand what is happening. The FCC had
rules that had prevented companies from throttling, or blocking, and it
had paved the way for many great successes. In the United States, we
have Fortune 500 companies and a tech industry that is responsible for
7 percent of our Nation's GDP and 6.9 million jobs in the United States
of America.
Why would you change the rules now? Why would you leave after having
made sure critical protections were in place and, instead, replace them
with the ability for certain companies--cable, specifically--to wreak
havoc on this economy?
Thirteen percent of Washington State's economy depends on a healthy
internet sector. The internet economy for our State supports 250,000
jobs, and at a time when the Nation has not had enough wage growth,
these tech jobs have been a bedrock for the middle class.
Chairman Pai is clearly not focused on the 250,000 jobs and the 13
percent of our State's economy. Just this past weekend, I and my
colleague, Congresswoman DelBene, met with many of these small
businesses. Their message was loud and clear: Please stop Chairman Pai
from ruining the internet by taking away key protections that make sure
our businesses run successfully.
Chairman Pai is abdicating his role. He is abandoning the consumers
whom he has sworn an oath to serve, and he is turning his back on
innovators. He has really changed the direction for us and our
innovation economy. I know that he thinks this is a light touch, but I
guarantee you that it is a ``no touch'' regulation. What we need is to
make sure that these companies do not artificially charge consumers,
small businesses, and Main Street more for what they already are doing
now and doing successfully. Obviously, an open internet rule and the
rules that we are living under now have fueled an innovation economy.
Every business plan of every startup relies on the company's ability to
be able to contact its consumers.
With this much of our economy at stake, let's not continue to make
mistakes. Let's continue to fight here in the Senate and make sure that
we stop Chairman Pai and the FCC from having the resources to implement
this rule. It is so important now that we continue to fight for small
businesses, for Main Street entrepreneurs, and for the innovation
economy.
We deserve to have an open internet. As the small businesses and
innovators just said to me this past weekend in Seattle, this is really
like siding with the big companies and saying that they are going to
make all of the decisions, that they are the ones that are going to be
in control. They are not going to be for competition, and they are not
going to be for this level of innovation. They are going to slow down
what is one of the best parts of our economy.
I hope that our colleagues will join the fight and stop the FCC, in
any manner possible, from implementing what is, literally, a very, very
anticompetitive strategy and one that is very, very focused on big
corporations, instead of the innovation economy of the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank all of my colleagues, led by
Senator Cantwell, for joining me on the floor this afternoon.
We are speaking on behalf of millions of our constituents and of the
tens of millions of Americans who support a free and open internet. I
am proud to come to the floor to discuss an issue of national
importance to both our economy and our democracy--net neutrality.
Now, a lot of people have recently stopped and asked me: What exactly
is net neutrality?
The technical answer is that network neutrality, or net neutrality,
is the principle that internet service providers--you know their names:
Verizon, AT&T, Charter, Comcast--cannot discriminate against content
providers, against websites. They are the people to whom you pay by
check each month and who make sure that you have broadband service. You
know who they are. The simpler explanation is this: No one owns the
internet. Everyone can use the internet. Anyone can improve the
internet.
Yet that will not be the case if the Trump administration and Ajit
Pai, the Chairman, and Republicans have their way. They want to get rid
of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules so that
the ISPs, the internet service providers, can indiscriminately charge
more for internet fast lanes, slow down websites, block websites, make
it harder--and, maybe, even impossible--for inventors, entrepreneurs,
and small businesses--the lifeblood of the American economy--to connect
to the internet.
That is why we are here this afternoon on the floor, and it is why
supporters of a free and open internet are vigorously opposed to this
politically craven attempt to weaken the principle of net neutrality
that has allowed the internet to flourish.
[[Page S7983]]
Tomorrow the Federal Communications Commission is voting on a
proposal that will cut at the very heart of a free and open internet.
They are voting to roll back net neutrality protections and send a love
letter to the big broadband companies that stand to make huge profits
without these rules.
So what are Chairman Pai and his broadband buddies really trying to
do?
The first thing they will do is to gut the rule against blocking.
What does that mean? It means that an internet service provider could
block any website it wants. That includes a website of a competing
service or a website with a contrary political view--whatever they
want.
Second, Chairman Pai would gut the rule against throttling. What does
that mean? It means that the internet service provider could slow down
any website it wants.
Third, Chairman Pai would gut the rule that bans paid prioritization.
What does that mean? It means that the internet service provider could
charge websites for an internet fast lane, meaning that those websites
could load more quickly, while the websites that could not afford the
internet's ``E-ZPass'' would be stuck on a gravel path and take more
time to load, frustrating consumers with long buffering times.
Fourth, Chairman Pai would gut the forward-looking general conduct
rule. What does that mean? The general conduct rule protects consumers
from harms such as data caps and other discriminatory behavior that
ISPs will think of in the coming months or years ahead.
Fifth, Chairman Pai would create an unregulated interconnection
market. What does that mean? It means that the Federal Communications
Commission would lose authority to oversee places at which ISPs connect
to the internet and extract fees.
Finally, Chairman Pai wants to prevent States and localities from
adopting their own net neutrality protections.
What will be the replacement for these enforceable net neutrality
rules today? What will replace them? Absolutely nothing. Chairman Pai
will leave it to the internet service providers to, simply, regulate
themselves in this unpoliced internet ``Wild West.''
Chairman Pai claims that the Federal Trade Commission--not the
Federal Communications Commission, which is the Commission of expertise
over telecommunications--somehow provides a sufficient backstop to bad
behavior by the ISPs, but that is simply not true.
Under the Federal Trade Commission, the big broadband barons would
establish their own net neutrality policies. That is like letting the
bullies develop their own playground rules. If the ISP wants to block
websites, slow down competitors' websites, and 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--that is,
the policy created by the broadband company itself. Yet, if an 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.
That is ridiculous, and it is wrong. Allowing the broadband industry
to set its own net neutrality protections is like letting the fox guard
the henhouse.
OK, so the Federal Trade Commission oversight will not work. Chairman
Pai claims that he has another solution. It is called transparency. He
argues that, if ISPs are transparent about their net neutrality
practices, consumers and businesses can simply choose to use a
broadband provider with the net neutrality practices that best suit
them. But what good is transparency when most Americans have little or
no choice for high-speed broadband access?
Consider this that 62 percent of Americans have only one choice for
high-speed, fixed broadband. That is right. Nearly two-thirds of the
country have only one choice from whom they can purchase broadband.
That means, if a household's only choice for high-speed broadband is
not transparent about its plans to set up internet fast and slow lanes,
the consumer has two choices--one, to accept the internet service
provider's terms or, two, to live without the internet. That is a false
choice. People do not want to live without the internet in the 21st
century.
Chairman Pai claims that internet service providers actually support
net neutrality but just not the open internet order under which we are
living today. That is like saying that you support democracy but not
the Constitution. It is like saying that you like math but you hate
numbers. It makes no sense.
The broadband barons have been fighting for years, both at the
Federal Communications Commission and in the courts, to block net
neutrality rules. It is crystal clear, and it has been for years. The
broadband companies are deeply opposed to net neutrality because they
want to drive up their profits by setting up internet fast and slow
lanes and charge consumers more for less. It is a simple formula.
Chairman Pai also claims that broadband investment has been
discouraged by the open internet order. That is false. Investment in
our broadband infrastructure is stronger than ever, and with the
deployment of 5G technologies on the horizon, we can expect this strong
investment to continue. Broadband investment in the aggregate has
increased in the 2 years since the FCC passed the open internet order.
Beyond just measuring dollars spent, broadband speeds also increased
after the 2015 order, meaning the ISPs have been improving the services
they offer to their consumers. Consider this: In 2016 almost half of
the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward
internet-specific and software companies. That is $25 billion worth of
investments.
We have hit the sweet spot. Investment in broadband and wireless
technologies is high, job creation is high, and venture capital
investment in online startups is high. Chairman Pai threatens to
disrupt this appropriate balance and squash innovation online. It is
clear that Americans do not want what the FCC is proposing. It seems as
though the only supporter of this plan is the broadband industry.
If Chairman Pai and his Republican colleagues turn a deaf ear to
millions of Americans standing up to net neutrality and approve their
plan tomorrow, we will continue this fight elsewhere. When the Obama-
era rules were challenged by the internet service providers in 2015, I
led a congressional amicus brief with Congresswoman Eshoo in support of
the rules. Congresswoman Eshoo and I plan to do it again this time and
lead an amicus brief in defense of net neutrality. I also intend to
file a Congressional Review Act, or CRA, resolution of disapproval with
a number of my colleagues so that the U.S. Senate can vote to undo
Chairman Pai's proposal and restore the 2015 open internet order.
The Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on our core
protections: DACA, the Affordable Care Act, the Paris climate accord,
and the Clean Power Plan. Now Trump's Federal Communications Commission
has put net neutrality in its sights.
For all of those who rely upon the free and open internet, whether it
is for commerce, education, healthcare or entertainment, I urge you to
join me in this fight to create a firestorm of opposition to this
assault on net neutrality. This is a fundamental attack on the openness
of the internet that must be beaten, and we must now form an army of
ordinary Americans as the voices that will fight the special interests
and lobbyists in this city who want to shut down net neutrality
forever.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Madam President, there are a handful of innovations over
the years that have redefined the United States and the entire world.
The cotton gin, railroads, electricity, and the automobile are just a
few examples. However, without question, broadband internet is one of
the defining innovations of our time. Broadband internet connects both
rural and urban communities to vital services such as telemedicine,
educational resources, and international commerce. In fact, broadband
internet is absolutely essential for communications in the modern era.
It lets us keep in touch with our loved ones no matter where they live,
[[Page S7984]]
and it has boosted productivity across every single industry. Perhaps
most importantly, broadband internet revolutionized our economy and has
led to millions of new jobs.
The ability to instantly reach consumers wherever they live has
allowed American small businesses and startups to compete with large
global corporations in a way that would have been simply unimaginable
just a couple of decades ago.
Michigan is home to over 850,000 small businesses and a growing
number of startups. The new ideas and creative solutions they generate
put America on the cutting edge of a global and interconnected economy.
Michigan small businesses are able to compete and innovate because of
the free and open structure of the internet, but, unfortunately, these
opportunities are at risk.
Tomorrow the FCC will vote to eliminate current net neutrality
protections that stop large corporations from stifling small businesses
and harming the American people. I think the facts are very
straightforward, and the FCC is wrong. They should stop what they are
doing and keep the current protections in place.
The current rules that I have consistently supported prevent internet
service providers from blocking, slowing, or prioritizing web traffic
for their own financial gain at the expense of small businesses and
every day internet users. The FCC's actions to roll back these
protections could usher in a new era of a two-tiered internet--one for
the large corporations that can pay for the fast lane and a slow lane
for the rest of us. This will allow internet service providers and
multinational corporations to compete unfairly against startups,
slowing down their traffic and playing gatekeeper to potential
customers.
Let me be clear. Repealing net neutrality is anti-innovation,
repealing net neutrality is anti-competition, and repealing net
neutrality is anti-consumer.
The FCC should not consider this proposal tomorrow to degrade
internet service, especially during a time when over 20 million
households in rural America, including far too many in my home State of
Michigan, still lack access to high-speed broadband internet.
The FCC has a lot of work to do to close the digital divide, and
repealing net neutrality is taking our country backward, not forward.
If the internet doesn't work for growing small businesses and startups,
our economy will be hurt for generations to come. High-speed broadband
and net neutrality in the 21st century is every bit as vital as
electricity was in the 20th century. All Americans deserve access,
regardless of their income or their ZIP Code.
We accomplished the goal of bringing electricity to every household
in this country in the last century, even in the most rural areas, by
making it a national priority. We need to make access to broadband
internet with strong net neutrality protections a national priority
today.
By preserving net neutrality, we put students, artists, advocates,
entrepreneurs, and other visionaries, who could be inventing the future
and creating the next big thing, ahead of a handful of multinational
corporations.
The FCC should call off this dangerous vote and, instead, work to
ensure that the internet remains a hub of entrepreneurship, creativity,
and competition.