[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.