[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 203 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7984-S7986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week, the Federal Communications 
Commission--FCC--is preparing to give a giant, early Christmas present 
to a few, deep-pocketed telecom companies, as it prepares to repeal 
critical net neutrality protections. Net neutrality is the simple 
principle that the internet should be kept free and open by preventing 
the corporations who control the connections to selectively throttle or 
block certain content, especially that of competitors.
  Repealing net neutrality rules will benefit just a few powerful 
corporations--and it will do so at the expense of small businesses, 
consumers, and hard-working Americans, whose persistent and passionate 
voices on this issue have been completely ignored by the FCC's 
Republican majority.
  Despite calling for public hearings when the current net neutrality 
protections were developed, Chairman Pai has failed to heed his own 
advice now that he is in charge of the FCC.
  It seems the only people he listens to are those with deep enough 
pockets to afford high-powered lobbyists. If you are a concerned 
citizen or small business owner, your voice doesn't matter to this FCC. 
As someone who held public hearings on this issue in 2014, I can tell 
you that there is widespread and overwhelming support for net 
neutrality just about everywhere except at the FCC itself.
  If the Chairman took the time to listen, as I did, he would hear from 
small business owners like Cabot Orton at the Vermont Country Store, 
who told me, ``We're not asking for special treatment, incentives, or 
subsidies. All the small business community asks is simply to preserve 
and protect Internet commerce as it exists today, which has served all 
businesses remarkably well.''
  Just today, we received a letter from businesses in Northern New 
England, including Vermont's own Ben & Jerry's, Cabot Creamery 
Cooperative, and King Arthur Flour, discussing the

[[Page S7985]]

``crippling effect'' a repeal of net neutrality rules would have on 
rural businesses.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Chairman Pai would hear from libraries, which for some rural 
communities are the only way to access the internet.
  As Vermont's State librarian, Martha Reid, told me: ``All Americans--
including the most disenfranchised citizens, those who would have no 
way to access the Internet without the library--need to be able to use 
Internet resources on an equal footing.''
  Chairman Pai would also hear from independent content creators whose 
voices are too often not heard on traditional media. As actress, 
writer, and producer Ruth Livier told me: ``In the unprecedented world 
of an open, nondiscriminatory Internet, no longer did low-budgets and 
no connections mean there was no way in. Never again could we be 
disregarded by anyone who essentially asks, `Who are you to have your 
story be told?' ''
  These are the voices being ignored. They are the people, the 
Americans, who stand to lose the most in the Chairman Pai's misguided 
plan.
  This is not about partisanship. Republicans and Democrats alike, in 
my State and every other State, benefit from the power of an open 
Internet, and equally stand to be harmed if the rules of the road 
ensuring its openness go away.
  I know there are some people with a lot of money who want to do away 
with net neutrality. They are even filing fake comments with the FCC 
saying they want to repeal these protections. One of those comments 
came to my attention. It had my name and my home address on it. Most 
people, when they saw it, just laughed, because they knew it was fake.
  None of us should support a process that willfully dismisses the 
voices of our constituents. I hope that all Senators will join me in 
calling on the FCC to abandon this reckless vote to repeal net 
neutrality.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                December 13, 2017.
     The Hon. Ajit Pai,
     Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.
       Dear FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: We are a group of businesses 
     from Northern New England with strong ties to the rural and 
     agricultural business community. We are writing today out of 
     deep concern about the FCC's proposal to roll back the 
     current net neutrality rules based on Title II of the 
     Communications Act. We urge you to maintain the existing 
     rules instead.
       As members of the business community in this region, we 
     regularly witness how small rural businesses, including the 
     farms and cooperatives that many of us source from, already 
     struggle with limited access to broadband and limited options 
     for Internet service providers. The repeal of net neutrality 
     would compound the challenges faced by these businesses, 
     adding cost and creating a competitive disadvantage to 
     running a successful business in rural America.
       Uninhibited access to the internet is already a fundamental 
     necessity for operating a successful business in rural areas. 
     Looking to the future, this is only going to become more 
     important. In our work with farmers in this region, we see 
     how this particular group of businesses is increasingly 
     reliant on the internet for access to technical information 
     and support, and for access to information about markets.
       The changes proposed by the FCC would remove the only 
     existing legal foundation strong enough to ensure net 
     neutrality protections are enforceable: Title II of the 
     Communications Act, as implemented in the agency's 2015 Open 
     Internet Order.
       Under this change, internet providers would gain new powers 
     to steer businesses and customers one way or another. For 
     example, Internet access providers could charge new fees for 
     prioritized access to customers. While big companies and 
     farms might be able to afford a pay-to-play prioritized `fast 
     lane' to users, small and medium sized businesses cannot; at 
     the very least, such new fees would put them at a distinct 
     disadvantage with larger competitors. Internet access 
     providers could also charge rural businesses new fees for 
     access to websites and services. They could favor certain 
     businesses by slowing down traffic or exempting competitors' 
     traffic from users' data caps. They could also block websites 
     and apps outright. This would create immense uncertainty for 
     companies in every sector of the economy who rely on open, 
     unencumbered connectivity as a key enabler for their business 
     and productivity. It could also greatly limit or bias 
     farmers' access to products, services, and information they 
     need to run their business.
       Ultimately, repealing net neutrality will have a crippling 
     effect on rural economies, further restricting access to the 
     internet for rural businesses at a point in time where we 
     need to expand and speed this access instead. We urge you to 
     maintain strong net neutrality rules and focus on advancing 
     policies that foster fair competition.
           Sincerely,
     Stonyfield,
       Londonderry, New Hampshire.
     King Arthur Flour,
       Norwich, Vermont.
     FoodState,
       Londonderry, New Hampshire.
     Boloco, Hanover, New Hampshire.
     Grandy Oats,
       Hiram, Maine.
     Cabot Creamery Cooperative,
       Waitsfield, Vermont.
     Ben and Jerry's,
       South Burlington, Vermont.
     Maine Grains,
       Skowhegan, Maine.
       cc: Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Angus King, Sen. Jeanne 
     Shaheen, Sen. Margaret Hassan, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. 
     Bernie Sanders, Rep. Chellie Pingree, Rep. Bruce Poliquin, 
     Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, Rep. Peter 
     Welch.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to join with the Senator from 
Vermont in opposition to the FCC's planned vote to end net neutrality 
protections.
  Tomorrow, as he noted, the FCC will hold a vote on Chairman Pai's 
plan to eliminate net neutrality. These rules have kept the internet 
free and open, and in a day where a lot of things aren't working, this 
was something that was actually working. People were able to access the 
internet, people in my State who maybe didn't have a lot of resources. 
Kids were able to access the internet to do their homework. It was 
working. If the FCC votes to abandon net neutrality, it will put 
internet service providers, not consumers, in charge of determining the 
future of the internet.
  Net neutrality holds internet service providers--big mega-internet 
service providers--accountable for providing the internet access 
consumers expect while protecting innovation and competition. It is the 
bedrock of a fast, free, and open internet.
  Net neutrality has allowed the internet to become one of the great 
American success stories, transforming not only how we communicate with 
our friends and our family but the way we do business, how consumers 
buy goods, and how we educate our kids. These protections have worked. 
We have rural kids who couldn't access classes before who are able to 
get these classes on the internet. We have small businesses that are 
able to advertise their services in a way that no one would have known 
that they existed. One of my favorite ones is a company called Weave 
Got Maille, and they are doing chain jewelry. It is just a group of 
about 10, 15 employees up there who started with nothing but one chain. 
Then they were able to come up with a cool nickname, and then they were 
able to advertise on the internet directly to consumers. Now they are 
one of the biggest employers in the town right on the Canadian border.
  These internet protections that have allowed small businesses to 
blossom have allowed consumers to access the internet like everyone 
else. They have worked, but with the FCC's vote tomorrow, the internet 
may soon be changing.
  Earlier this year, when Chairman Pai announced his proposal to 
eliminate net neutrality protections, Americans took the opportunity to 
make their voices heard during the public comment hearing, and the 
proposal received a record 23 million comments. While many of these 
comments are written by consumers worried about the future of the 
internet, there is reason to be concerned about that process. 
Approximately 1 million fraudulent comments were filed with the FCC, 
and an additional half a million comments were filed with Russian email 
addresses. Sound familiar? I think so.
  I think everyone in this Chamber knows Russia has been trying to 
influence our democracy in every way they can--from hacking to putting 
out propaganda, to now trying to insert itself into a comment process 
for our free and open internet, something that has

[[Page S7986]]

been the hallmark of American society, something they don't have in 
Russia. Just think, an additional half a million comments were filed 
from Russian email addresses. This is troubling because, in America, 
the public comment process matters. It is one of the few opportunities 
Americans have to weigh in directly with the FCC. That is why I joined 
several of my colleagues in calling on Chairman Pai to delay the vote 
until the FCC fully investigated these fake and foreign comments. 
Despite our calls, the FCC is still moving ahead with its vote. Despite 
23 million comments, they are still moving ahead with their vote.
  Under Chairman Pai's plan, the FCC gives internet service providers 
the ability to significantly change consumers' experience online. 
Internet service providers may soon be able to block, slow, and 
prioritize web traffic for their own financial gain, not for the 
average citizens' gain but for their gain. This means, internet service 
providers could begin sorting online traffic into fast or slow lanes 
and charging consumers extra for high-speed broadband. They would also 
be able to slow consumers' connections once they have hit a certain 
data limit or if they are viewing content from a competitor, and 
internet service providers may even block content they don't want their 
subscribers to access. So much for an open internet.
  The only protections maintained under the proposed order are 
requirements for service providers to disclose their internet traffic 
policies. However, for consumers with only one choice for internet 
service, like many in my State and like many in rural areas, there is 
no real opportunity to comparison shop or find a new provider if they 
are unhappy with their service. This means that even though consumers 
may be aware that their internet service provider is blocking or 
slowing their connection, they actually don't have a choice so what 
does that information matter to them anyway? This proposal will harm 
consumers, particularly in rural areas. It will limit competition, and 
it will hurt small business, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
  What I have seen around this place is that everyone is talking about 
rural broadband. They want to expand broadband. I want to expand 
broadband. Well, you can expand broadband all you want, but it is not 
going to matter if people aren't able to afford to access it.
  A truly open internet encourages economic growth and provides 
opportunities for businesses to reach new markets, drive innovation, 
and create jobs. Small businesses remain engines of job creation, and 
net neutrality levels the playing field, allowing small companies to 
compete with more established brands. That is what America is about--
allowing more innovation and small companies to come up and compete.
  Unfortunately, for small businesses and startups across the country, 
the net neutrality repeal will mean new barriers when competing online. 
Without unrestricted access to the internet, entrepreneurs may be 
forced to pay for equal footing to compete online rather than focus on 
expanding their business. Small businesses unable to pay for access to 
faster internet service may soon find themselves struggling to compete 
from the slow lane, not the fast lane. This proposal will hurt the very 
people creating jobs and keeping our economy competitive.
  As a strong supporter of a free and open internet, it is clear that 
repealing net neutrality is a step in the wrong direction. We are 
facing an increasingly global and interconnected economy, and it is 
critical that the internet remain a hub of entrepreneurship, 
creativity, and fair competition.
  The fight to protect net neutrality is far from over, and we need to 
keep the pressure on. We have seen merger after merger after merger. We 
have seen consolidated businesses, bigger and bigger and bigger. So now 
what is the next step here? To limit net neutrality to make it harder 
for the small guys, for the ones who are trying to get into the market 
to compete. It is not just an isolated philosophy; it is actually part 
of a larger philosophy, which means that smaller companies, that 
individuals are going to have a hard time getting into the market and 
getting free access like the big guys.
  That is why we ask Chairman Pai to reconsider this vote on Thursday 
and to come up with a new policy that doesn't hurt the people of 
America.
  It is no surprise today that the poll I saw said the vast majority of 
Americans don't favor getting rid of net neutrality, and in fact it 
showed the vast majority of Republicans don't favor getting rid of net 
neutrality. So we ask Chairman Pai, who was appointed chairman by a 
Republican President, to reconsider this decision.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Massachusetts.