[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 80 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2691-S2698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Net Neutrality
Mr. President, turning to another subject, net neutrality, protecting
a free and open internet is something every American should care about.
Restoring net neutrality protections is about more than just what shows
we can watch on Netflix and Hulu. We depend on the internet for nearly
everything in our lives--from staying in touch with loved ones on
social media to communicating with doctors and paying our bills. It is
also about preserving access to information in times of need.
Over the past month, Hawaii residents have depended on the internet
to access lifesaving information and to communicate with their friends
and family during a series of devastating
[[Page S2692]]
natural disasters. On April 15 and 16, nearly 50 inches of rain fell on
Hanalei on the North Shore of Kauai, setting the record for the largest
rainfall in a 24-hour period in American history. This storm destroyed
many homes, triggered mudslides that closed Kuhio Highway, and damaged
local businesses. That same storm also caused widespread flooding and
damage on another island in East Oahu.
In an event that has drawn international attention, volcanic activity
on Hawaii Island--including fissures, along the Kilauea east rift zone,
around 100 earthquakes per day, lava eruptions, and significant ash
fall events--has already destroyed 40 structures in the Puna community.
More than 2,000 residents have been evacuated as the lava continues to
flow and toxic sulfur dioxide pollutes the air.
Residents on Kauai, Oahu, and the Big Island have depended on a free
and open internet to receive up-to-the-minute, lifesaving information
from local media, as well as from Federal, State, and local
governments.
Rules on net neutrality established by the Obama administration
prevented internet service providers--ISPs--from discriminating against
and blocking content. These essential protections help to ensure a
level playing field for all content providers and consumers, but under
the leadership of Donald Trump's handpicked Chairman, the Federal
Communications Commission issued an order late last year that would
completely eviscerate net neutrality protections.
Internet service providers looking to maximize profits should not be
able to restrict access to information or slow speed for providers
unable to pay more, particularly during a natural disaster or other
emergency.
During the flooding on Kauai and Oahu and the ongoing volcanic
activity on Hawaii Island, local news providers have been a critical
lifeline for local residents in search of timely, accurate, and
understandable information. Traditional newspapers like the Honolulu
Star-Advertiser, the Garden Island, and the Hawaii Tribune-Herald, as
well as online news sources like Honolulu Civil Beat, Big Island Now,
and Big Island Video News have provided an essential service to the
public. Through their websites and social media channels, these news
sources have provided detailed reporting about the precise location of
hazardous locations, where evacuees can find shelter and essential
services, and where the public can make donations of clothing and
nonperishable food. Television stations like Hawaii News Now, KITV, and
KHON have also used their websites and social media platforms to
livestream news reports that have been a critical lifeline for local
residents and for their families and friends.
National and international journalists have also drawn on the work of
local Hawaii journalists to report their stories to a national and
international audience. The good work of journalists at Hawaii News
Now, KITV, and Anthony Quintano at Civil Beat, for example, is being
seen by people across the country and around the world on CNN and NBC
News, among others. The response of these local news outlets to natural
disasters in Hawaii demonstrates why they are so important to the
communities they serve. These news outlets depend--depend--on a free
and open internet to deliver their content to consumers where and when
they need it.
For an industry already facing a funding crisis driven by declining
advertising revenue, the rollback of net neutrality would have a
devastating impact on local news. A 2017 report by Adam Hersh at the
Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University cogently
summarizes what is at stake. According to his report, local news
sources would be particularly hard hit if ISPs could charge access
fees, block traffic from certain providers, throttle speeds, and charge
fast-lane fees in exchange for preferential treatment. Huge media
conglomerates would have little trouble paying for access, but local
papers like the Star-Advertiser and nonprofit news sources like Civil
Beat could be hard hit or even driven out of business.
In addition to the impact on local news providers, repealing net
neutrality could make it more difficult and expensive for relief
organizations to collect donations for people affected by natural
disasters. The Pu'uhonua o Puna community center, for example, is using
social media to organize a community and statewide relief response to
help families affected by volcanic activity. Using their online
platform, the center is coordinating donations, identifying families
requiring special assistance, and connecting evacuated residents with
people who can help.
Eliminating net neutrality would also have a negative impact on small
businesses in Hawaii, including those hard hit by recent disasters and
those affected by decreased visitor access. Small businesses depend on
high-speed and high-quality internet to reach their customers and grow
their businesses. We all know this.
We had a Small Business Committee meeting hearing yesterday, where it
was acknowledged that small businesses depend very much on the internet
and free and open access. These businesses don't have the resources to
compete in a pay-to-play system on the internet.
It is because of stories like these that a bipartisan group of
Senators is forcing a vote to save net neutrality. An internet service
provider should not be able to restrict access, especially--
especially--during a major disaster, such as those being experienced in
Hawaii, just so they can make more money.
I encourage all of my colleagues to join this effort and pass this
resolution to prevent the elimination of net neutrality today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii, and
our sympathy is with the State of Hawaii as they respond to this
volcanic eruption. I noticed on the news this morning that they were
referencing it could be as bad as Mount St. Helens. Trust me, that had
a devastating impact on our State. I hope that all Federal agencies are
helping in whatever ways they can with Hawaii's natural disaster.
I also thank her for talking about the importance of net neutrality.
I, too, have come to the floor to defend the open internet. It is a
pro-consumer, pro-innovation rule that we have to build on because it
is worth 7 percent of our GDP and 6.9 million jobs. That is what the
internet economy is.
The net neutrality rules that we are fighting for today have four
bright-line rules that help businesses, help consumers, and help our
internet economy to grow. They are these: No. 1, don't block content;
No. 2, don't throttle content--that is, don't slow it down--and No. 3,
don't create paid prioritization, which is like in the Burger King ad
saying: If you want the next Whopper available, pay $15. I think they
did a pretty good job of showing what would happen if you had every
business operating that way. No. 4 is transparency, to make sure that
you know exactly what you are getting charged for.
The Obama-era Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that
basically protected consumers and businesses on those four things. Why
did they do that? Because there were some who were trying to eke their
way into making more money off of consumers and businesses on what is
basic service.
Title II was the regulatory framework that the Obama-era FCC used to
make sure that consumers were protected. They were the strongest tools
available, and they helped to make sure that there was not monopolistic
behavior that would harm businesses.
The rule that was established by the then-Federal Communications
Commission was an open internet with the FCC being the cop on the beat.
That is to say, if you have these rules, you also have to have someone
who is going to enforce them, someone who is going to look at the
monopolistic behaviors of cable companies or providers and say: That is
unfair to consumers and businesses.
But under the Trump-era FCC, all of those rules were thrown out. That
is why we are here today. I and my colleagues are saying that we want
to go back to the protections of the internet that are called ``net
neutrality'' to make sure that the FCC--instead of a passive entity
that just OKs every charge that cable companies want to do--says: These
are rules about not slowing down content, not engaging in
[[Page S2693]]
monopolistic behavior. These things are wrong, and we are going to be
the policeman on the beat.
The FCC can protect consumers and innovators, and they can make sure
that internet traffic does not violate an open internet. But, as I
said, the Trump-era FCC is trying to throw out these strong rules, and
cable companies are already--already--starting to raise prices for
higher speed.
In Vancouver, WA, Comcast recently announced that higher speed tiers
would be available but only to consumers who purchase expensive paid
TV-internet bundles. That is why we are here. Because while it sounds
like: Why do we want to give cable companies the opportunity to
throttle, block, or create paid prioritization, we also have to realize
that today the internet economy is so much bigger than it has ever
been; that it is a job creator and an innovator. In my State, it is 13
percent of our economy, and thousands of jobs that continue to grow
every day as new applications for the internet are created.
It is so important that businesses, which are even using these apps
to help run their businesses more efficiently, continue to get access
to those tools. But what about an internet in which a cable provider
decided to artificially slow down that website and thereby create a
disincentive for the very things that are helping to make our
businesses more efficient?
So we want to make sure that the FCC does its original job. What is
that? Well, they are there to promote development and adaptation of
communication networks in the public interest. They are serving
consumers, and that is the center of their mission.
The center of their mission should not be serving cable companies.
That is why courts have said to the FCC: If you want to have the
authority to protect an open internet, you have to do that under title
II. Basically, the court explained that if enforcing open internet
principles and being a watchdog against abuses is important to the
FCC's mission of promoting the deployment and adoption of
communications in the public interest, then, those powers have to flow
from title II of the Communications Act. So that is why the Obama-era
FCC adopted those rules.
Today we know that the internet is a basic necessity. It provides
access that helps our healthcare delivery system work, our education
system work, our banking system work, shopping, and all sorts of things
that make it a necessary tool in life today.
When a service is that essential and critical to individuals and
communities and their economic success, we need to make sure that
consumers have protections and to make sure that it is not abused.
In the United States, just three providers of internet access have
about 70 percent of consumers. In any market with only a few players,
it is essential that we protect businesses and consumers, and that is
exactly what title II does. It helps to protect us from a cable company
gouging and its close cousin--paid prioritization.
Title II makes sure that the barriers to entry are not erected so
that entrepreneurs or startups that want to bring new products to
market aren't artificially slowed down and a larger competitor that can
pay more for it can continue the access.
Just recently, we had an event with Redfin, a company that is
changing the real estate market in the Pacific Northwest by helping to
drive down the cost to consumers for real estate purchases. They made
it very clear that Redfin was able to develop today because it had an
open internet and its consumers and business partners could connect to
it. But in a world where they were just starting out new and they had
to pay for prioritization to get good broadband service, they may not
have been as successful.
These rules--title II--give expert agencies the tools to look behind
the curtain and make sure that cable companies are providing the
services that do not violate an open internet.
There is a reason that cable companies don't want to follow these
rules. It is because they want to make more money. I get it. They want
to make more money. But I would say that with 40 percent of Americans
having no choice in whom they buy internet services from, we have to be
much more vigilant. These companies have several vertically integrated
companies at the top, and they are seeking to amass more and more
content. That could give them the tools, again, to block content, to
slow it down, or to x out a competitor if they so choose. I do not want
to see the FCC sitting on the sidelines and not policing this kind of
environment.
I know that AT&T is now trying to merge with Time Warner. These large
companies want to continue to amass content and to drive the
marketplace. The American Consumer Satisfaction Index tracks consumer
satisfaction, and these big companies are at an all-time low. Do
consumers think they are going to do the right thing on their own? Do
they think cable companies will do that?
The cable industry ranks at the very bottom of 43 industries in
consumer satisfaction. In fact, it has been in the dead-last position
for 5 years. So does the public think they are doing the right things
when it comes to them or their businesses? I think that survey says it
all. They have great concern.
One of the reasons cable companies give for why they don't want to
follow net neutrality rules is because they say it will hurt their
investment in networks. Well, I guess I would ask the question: Did the
Obama-era FCC rules slow down investment? No, they didn't. The big
cable companies continued to make investments in their networks.
In the year immediately following the FCC rule that went into place,
the entire industry showed that the total capital expenditures
increased by more than $550 million above the previous year's
investment. For example, in a 2017 earnings report, Comcast, the
Nation's largest broadband provider, noted that its capital
expenditures increased 7.5 percent to $9 billion and that it continued
to make deployment in platforms like X1 and wireless gateways.
Likewise, AT&T spent $22 billion on capital investments, up $20
billion from the previous year.
In fact, 2016 represents the industry's highest single-year jump in
broadband network investment since 1999.
So the notion that they are somehow going to slow down on investment
is just not true. The historic growth came after companies had a full
year to digest the impacts of title II and net neutrality rules being
put in place by the Obama-era FCC.
So where are we today? Well, these companies continue to make money,
and they want a free pass on continuing to make more. That is why our
goal is not the profits of big cable companies. Our goal is to make
sure that the internet economy continues to grow and the juggernaut of
job creation and innovation continues to expand.
We want the internet ecosystem that has doubled as a percentage of
GDP from 2007 to 2017 to continue to grow. As I said, in my State it is
about 13 percent of our State's economy, and I spend practically every
day in the Senate hearing about another innovation from someone in my
State. It might be the farm economy and more efficient ways to produce
products or get products to market or manage their livestock. It might
be in telemedicine and helping someone from one side of the State to
the other to get access to care. It might be as basic as connecting
people to their families and loved ones, but it is the internet that we
know today that is so integral to our lives.
I hope the commonsense legislation in front of us--the CRA--which
would restore those Obama-era FCC net neutrality rules, passes. I hope
our colleagues will understand that getting exorbitant internet fees
from cable providers is not the direction the American people want to
go. American entrepreneurs, innovators, and consumers cannot afford to
take that hit. What they want to see is an open internet--one that
continues to allow so much more of the internet economy to flourish.
Let's make sure that we say to the FCC: We don't want you folding or
sitting on your hands. We want you to police the internet, and we want
you to have the rules to do it.
That is why we must pass the CRA today. I hope our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle will join us, because there is just too much at
stake in our innovation economy.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S2694]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for
her leadership and her articulation of a big issue before us. I too
rise today ahead of a vote that is of vital importance to protecting a
free and open internet.
Last week FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that June 11 would be the
date when key net neutrality protections will officially end. This
backward, misguided decision from the FCC threatens the consumer
friendly internet that Americans know today--an internet that ensures
equal access to content, regardless of which internet service provider
you use.
Ending net neutrality could impact all of our people. In New
Hampshire, our citizens are rightly concerned, with thousands of
Granite Staters contacting my office to urge Congress to save these key
protections.
I am pleased to join my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to
force a vote to do just that.
Reinstating net neutrality is critical to promoting innovation,
supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses across New Hampshire, and
encouraging economic growth. By ensuring that our businesses can
compete on the internet on an equal footing, we provide more
opportunity for a wide range of businesses, from high-tech companies
and startups to farming and agriculture.
On Monday, I visited Stoneyfield Farm in Londonderry, NH, to discuss
the negative impact that repealing net neutrality will have on their
business and countless other businesses across our State. Stoneyfield
is a New Hampshire business that sells organic dairy products all over
our country and relies on the internet to reach their customers. They
also rely on the internet to connect with small businesses and dairy
farmers that help source their products.
When I met with representatives from Stoneyfield and farmers from
around New England on Monday, they made clear that they are worried
about what could happen if smaller farms are charged more for access to
websites and services--a potential effect of repealing net neutrality.
Farmers are already operating on pretty small margins, and they could
be hurt by having to pay even more to get the kind of speed on the
internet they need in order to be competitive. This is particularly
troubling in rural areas, where many communities still face challenges
with access to broadband.
It is not just rural communities and farmers. This decision would
hurt small businesses in any number of industries across New Hampshire,
all to give big internet service providers another opportunity to raise
their profits.
It would be unfair to all consumers to give internet service
providers the power to discriminate against certain web pages, apps,
and streaming and video services by slowing them down, blocking them,
or favoring certain services while charging more for others.
Protecting a free and open internet means we are protecting the
farmers who need the internet to sell their products. It means we are
protecting the next great startup which needs a level playing field to
compete against larger, more established companies. It means we are
protecting the countless Americans who have used the internet as a
mechanism to organize and civically engage online.
There has been so much energy from Granite Staters and Americans who
are in favor of reinstating net neutrality because they know how much
is at stake. I am grateful for their efforts to speak out because they
have helped us get to this point today. I am hopeful more of my
Republican colleagues will join us today to put consumers and small
businesses first and to show that the U.S. Senate is in favor of a free
and open internet.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to
support S.J. Res. 52, which would reinstate the free and open internet.
I thank my colleagues, Senator Markey and others, for bringing this to
our attention. It deals with the Congressional Review Act to block
regulation which had been suggested that would repeal the protections
we have on the free internet. Let me just give a little bit of
background so we can put this in context.
Internet service providers--known as ISPs--are basically utility
companies that provide internet service to our constituents, to our
businesses, and to America. Without the protection for net neutrality,
these utilities have the ability to block or throttle content on the
internet or charging what is known as being in the fast lane, charging
more. So this is a debate between whether we are on the side of the big
utility companies that provide internet service and their special
interests or the individuals and small businesses of America to
guarantee them equal access to this critical service. Let me give one
example, and there are many that can be given.
I am sure, in every one of our communities, we have a lot of small
businesses. They recognize that they can now do business on the
internet, and they have an opportunity to compete with the large
companies that do most of their business through the internet.
In Baltimore, in Maryland, I have small shop owners. One I am
particularly familiar with sells bikes. This shop owner now is using
the internet in order to get to customers so he can show his wares on
the internet and be able to compete against one of the large, giant
retailers that does a lot of business on the internet.
If a consumer in Baltimore goes onto that bike shop's website, and if
the product that consumer is interested in will not pop up within a
couple seconds, the consumer is gone. There has been study after study
that shows that about 3 seconds is the maximum attention span of a
consumer shopping on the internet.
The large store that has access to the fast-service broadband will
have an incredible advantage over our small businesses if we allow the
utility that provides the internet service to discriminate against the
smaller users. That is what this debate is about. It is about
protecting individual consumers, and it is about protecting small
businesses.
There is a reason why, in 2015, the open internet order was passed to
protect utilities that provide internet service from blocking or
slowing down internet service.
Broadband internet service is a public utility. It is interesting
that almost half of the consumers have no choice in whom they have to
provide their internet service. They have basically one internet
provider to choose from. Competition does not exist. So this is not a
matter of competition; this is a matter of preventing discrimination.
I have had the honor of being the ranking member of the Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, and I can tell you, on behalf
of the small businesses of Maryland and around the Nation, on behalf of
farm owners around the Nation, they need to have access to the
internet, and they depend upon net neutrality. Fifty-six percent of the
small business owners oppose the FCC's repeal of net neutrality; 70
percent of small business owners feel they are at a disadvantage
compared to a large corporation due to their size and market power. The
internet gives them that capacity to try to equalize that disadvantage.
John Duda is co-owner of Red Emma's, a cooperative bookstore and
restaurant in my hometown in Baltimore. He summed it up best by saying:
I don't have the money to pay an internet service provider
to guarantee my website will load quickly for all users, so
I'm concerned the end of net neutrality means customers will
buy from retailers that have the resources to pay for faster
service. Additionally, if my internet service provider slows
load times for--or blocks access to--my web content, we'll be
up against more than just larger book sellers or
restaurants--we're suddenly competing against any website
that loads quickly because those are the ones that will draw
people's attention.
This is a matter of economic survival for small businesses. Everybody
wants to make sure they have access and that we have superhighways for
broadband. We have that in Maryland, and we need the last mile to make
sure you can get connected. Absolutely, we have to do
[[Page S2695]]
more to make sure all communities have access to internet service, but,
like healthcare, if you don't have quality care, access is not going to
help you. You need to be able to have reliable broadband service.
Net neutrality has lowered the barriers to starting and growing a
small business, and that is undeniably good for our economy. We all
brag about the fact that small businesses are the growth engine of
America and more jobs are created by small business, innovation, et
cetera. Let's make sure we give small business what they need. Let's
preserve net neutrality.
As FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel put it, ``For the first time,
small business could think big and consumers could shop small, from
anywhere in the world.'' Think about that for a moment: Small
businesses can think big because they have access to the internet, and
consumers can shop anywhere in the world and shop in small companies
anywhere in the world. The loss of net neutrality jeopardizes that
progress.
In every State, community, and home across our Nation, Americans
expect the water coming out of their tap to flow on demand and be safe
to drink. They expect the lights in their homes to go on thanks to the
utility company that provides the electricity. And, yes, they not only
want but need to have access to broadband internet in the very same
way. This is a utility, and it needs to be regulated as such.
These providers should not have the last word in what any American
can see on the internet. Access to the information vital for our
democracy and our economy to function must be preserved.
Congress has a chance to put consumers and small businesses first and
prevent the FCC from bowing to corporate interests instead of serving
the public interest. I urge my colleagues to vote for S.J. Res. 52.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is important for everybody to understand
how things work today and what net neutrality is all about. What net
neutrality is fundamentally about is that everybody gets a fair shake
with respect to using the internet. After you pay your internet access
fee, you get to go where you want, when you want, and how you want.
There are no special deals. There are no priority lanes for those with
deep pockets to get more content and get it faster than everybody else.
That is not the way it works today. Everybody gets a fair shake on an
open and free internet because of net neutrality.
What Mr. Pai, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, and
his allies want is something very different. Under their vision of how
things would work online, there would be toll booths all over the
internet, and those higher costs would, one way or another, come out of
your pocket. That would work a hardship on millions of Americans, on
millions literally but especially on small businesses, seniors, and
students. Everybody would be affected by a new approach that would
establish toll booths all over the internet.
My view is that there is no vote this body is going to take in 2018
that will have a more direct impact on the wallets of Americans than
the one that is going to happen in a few hours. This is the last chance
to protect the free and open internet that comes about with real net
neutrality. The fact is, if we don't do it, the Trump Federal
Communications Commission and Chairman Pai want to turn the lights out
on the system I described today where, after you pay for your internet
access, you go where you want, when you want, how you want. That is
what we have today. Without what we are doing here, Chairman Pai at the
Federal Communications Commission can change that and take money away
from typical Americans to line the pockets of their friends at the big
communications monopolies, Big Cable.
If Republicans in Congress allow this administration to get away with
repealing net neutrality, Americans can certainly expect to be charged
more for Netflix, for music services on Spotify, and for video game
downloads--for example, on PlayStation.
This isn't some academic policy question that is going to show up
years from now. Certainly, there are matters we talk about where that
could be the case. This is where the Trump Federal Communications
Commission could hand big cable companies more power and take more
money out of the pockets of the American people next month.
I am very appreciative of my colleague Ed Markey for the
extraordinary leadership role he has taken. He and I have enjoyed
teaming up since the days when we began in public service. Senator
Markey was then Congressman Markey, and he introduced the first net
neutrality bill in the House. I had the honor of partnering with him
when I introduced the first net neutrality bill in the Senate. Both of
us said, literally, more than a decade ago, that we needed
communications policies that were rooted in the principle of
nondiscrimination--transparency, openness, and freedom for all online.
Here we are, back in this fight once again, to pass the Markey
resolution, which, in effect, will ensure that what my colleague has
sponsored today and sought to do a decade ago, on which I partnered
with him, will actually get done.
Everybody understands that you have to pay a fee to get access to the
net. The question at the heart of this debate that you have to keep
coming back to is this: Once you pay that fee, shouldn't everybody get
a fair shake? Shouldn't we be able to say in America that once you pay
that fee, you ought to be able to go where you want, when you want, and
how you want? As the Trump FCC wants to do, should you be able to say
that the big cable companies should be able to hot-wire the system--to
rig the internet--for the benefit of those who can afford to pay more?
I would say, because I have been listening to my friend talk about
this, that their vision is, really, something along the lines of an
information aristocracy, whereby, if you have deep pockets, you are
going to have access to a technology treasure trove, but the typical
American, with his vision, is kind of on his way to digital serfdom.
That is why it is so important to understand what Chairman Pai and the
FCC are up to, which is special deals for special interests and more
power--significantly more power--for those with deep pockets.
What the people who are opposed to real net neutrality have cooked up
is a scheme called paid prioritization. I say to Senator Markey that I
have called this effort that of erecting tollbooths online. What it
means is that if you are among the fortunate few, you get faster
download speeds and more content. If you are a big, established
company, guess what. You can stifle the competition. You can squash the
competition. Those opportunities aren't going to be available to an
entrepreneur who is just starting out in his garage somewhere. For a
family that is barely staying afloat, what it sounds like they are
interested in is giving them second-rate internet service. I think
Senator Markey and I remember that it was not that long ago when big
chunks of America had dial-up, and people seemed to wait forever to get
online.
Mr. Pai is going to tell you with a straight face that these big
cable companies have the best of intentions and that they are sort of
going to go along with all of this voluntarily because it is just the
right thing to do. Yet my question is this: If the cable companies are
just going to go along with net neutrality, why is Mr. Pai working so
hard to get rid of it? It doesn't really stand up. I always say at
home, because people ask what it means for us--and they have gotten to
meet the charming William Peter Wyden, aged 10--that there is about as
much chance that the cable companies will voluntarily go along with net
neutrality as the likelihood that William Peter Wyden and his sister
will voluntarily limit the number of their desserts. It is just not
going to happen. In particular, if Mr. Pai says he believes in real net
neutrality, the Markey resolution will give him a chance to actually
show that. But we all know that he doesn't see it that way.
[[Page S2696]]
I just opened all townhall meetings in Oregon, most of them in rural
communities, and I know the distinguished Presiding Officer of the
Senate represents a lot of rural terrain. I am telling you that people
in those rural areas understand what is at stake for rural America
here. For rural America, without the Markey resolution, it will mean
the net will move along at snail's pace. It will mean that rural
businesses could have a harder time in getting off the ground and
reaching customers. I talked to ranchers, for example, about just this
issue. It will mean rural healthcare could miss out on technological
marvels that could have the potential to save lives.
This is particularly important because Senator Markey and I have
teamed up on a lot of the efforts to improve American healthcare. We
have led the fight to show that we are updating the Medicare guarantee
so that it will not be just an acute care program but will focus on
chronic illnesses. Senator Markey and I have led the effort for more
care at home and for greater access to telemedicine. All of those
technological marvels really depend on rapid access to the net. If you
are in rural America and you have had a stroke, rapid access to the net
may be something that will saves lives and that will ensure those rural
providers will be able to get connections to parts of the country that
will have, for example, a neurologist available who will be able to
help.
The Markey resolution and its passage should not be an issue seen
along partisan lines. I don't see it as a political question. The
bottom line of the debate is that if the resolution goes down, the
stuff Americans do on the internet today is going to cost them a whole
lot more tomorrow. It is not going to take place years from now and be
some kind of an abstract question. It is going to be on Americans.
Those extra costs will come out of their pockets, and it will cost them
a lot more in a hurry.
I close by thanking my colleague from Massachusetts for all of his
leadership. It has been my privilege to team up with him. I guess it
becomes almost bicameral since the two of us started this in the House
and the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to support the Markey resolution and do the
right thing. Support the consumer and small businesses. Let's not hand
more power and profit to the big cable companies at the expense of
Americans, from sea to shining sea, who cannot afford more money to
come out of their wallets and go to the big cable companies.
I see my friend on the floor.
Mr. MARKEY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I wanted to follow up on that very important point
that the Senator was making, which is that these big companies are all
saying: You don't have to worry because we don't have any intention of
discriminating.
Then we say: Well, that is what net neutrality says, that you should
not discriminate, that you should treat everybody equally.
Then they turn around and say: Oh, you can trust us, but take the
rules off the books that we say that we agree with and that we are
going to abide by.
From my perspective, they are trying to have it both ways, but the
way they really want to have it is with no rules at all. Then, they
will be free to go back to displaying conduct which we know, in the
past, they have engaged in.
Does the Senator agree with that assessment?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my colleague from Massachusetts is probably
being too logical for a lot of this discussion, whereby the special
interests continue to shroud their real agenda, which is what my friend
from Massachusetts has described. Clearly, with this effort the big
cable companies, with their hopes riding on Mr. Pai, would like to go
back to yesteryear, when they could gouge the consumer, when they could
stick it to the person of modest means.
I think my colleague has summed it up very well. If Mr. Pai and his
allies were really going to present us with a real net neutrality plan,
I know we would be interested in hearing about it, but they have never
been interested in that. What they have been interested in is taking a
whole lot of legalisms and murky language to try and fool the American
consumer. The bottom line is Mr. Pai and his allies would like to set
up these tollbooths across the country and start with a policy that,
one way or another, is going to cost the typical consumer more.
I look forward to my colleague's remarks.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator because, I think, that
is what he identified 12 years ago when he introduced a net neutrality
bill here in the Senate and what I had identified over in the House. We
worked together on it at that time, and the need just continues,
especially as we get deeper and deeper into this internet era. It is
almost like oxygen for somebody now, especially for young people, young
entrepreneurs. They need to know that they can gain access to the web
in order to start up their new software or internet companies, but they
shouldn't have to first raise money to pay exorbitant fees to the big
broadband companies. First, they should be free to innovate and not
worry that they be can be discriminated against.
Whether it is in Portland, OR, or in Springfield, MA, it is the same
principle for which we have been trying to stand up for all of these
years. It was the law until December of 2017, when Ajit Pai and the
Trump FCC took it off the books. That is what the debate is about
today: Are we going to put those rules, those nondiscriminatory rules,
back on the books?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my colleague has said it very well. It is
what I saw last week in these nine townhall meetings, and almost all of
them were in rural Oregon.
People joked and asked: Ron, why are you here? We have more cows than
people.
I said: My hometown is Portland. I love Portland.
My only frustration, as my friend knows, is I didn't get to play for
the Trail Blazers.
I am not a Senator from the State of Portland. I am a Senator who
represents every nook and cranny of Oregon, however small. What I would
say to my friend and, I hope, to my colleagues--because the Senate
represents a lot of rural terrain--is what I heard in places like Burns
and Prairie City last week. If they have to pay more for less content,
which, I think, could easily happen under these trickle-down
telecommunications policies of Mr. Pai's, then it is not just going to
be Portland, OR, and Springfield, MA. It is going to be rural America--
literally, from sea to shining sea--that is going to wake up very soon
and find its bills going into the stratosphere.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, by the way, whether it is Burns or the
Berkshires, there are rural parts in every State. We have them, as
well, in Massachusetts. They have the same right of access to a free,
unfettered internet as do the people who live in Cambridge, MA, or in
Portland, OR. The rural parts in every State are entitled to it. The
rural businesses, the farmers should all be able to rely upon--have a
guarantee--its being free, open, and that they are not going to be
discriminated against.
That is why I wanted to get up and thank the Senator for his historic
leadership on this issue. He was there at the dawn of this whole era,
and he continues to ensure that the internet is infused with the values
that, I think, our Nation wants to have reflected.
Mr. WYDEN. It has been a privilege to work with my colleague. This
has been bipartisan--especially making sure the kinds of policies that
can come about with real net neutrality and making sure rural
communities get a fair shake complement other work we are doing that
represents the future. My colleague and I have talked about the fact
that in our efforts to update the Medicare guarantee, for years and
years both political parties have missed what Medicare has become.
Back when I was director of the Gray Panthers--the senior citizens--
Medicare had two parts, Part A for hospitals and Part B for doctors. If
you broke your ankle and went to the hospital, that was Part A of
Medicare. That is not Medicare any longer. Today, Medicare is cancer,
diabetes, heart disease, strokes, and chronic pulmonary disease--all of
these chronic conditions. What my colleague has done--and I am so
appreciative of the fact that we can work together on this. We said:
Let's
[[Page S2697]]
update the Medicare guarantee. Medicare is not a voucher, a slip paper
you give to people. It is a guarantee of basic services. So Senator
Markey and I and others of both political parties have come along and
said: Let's give people more care at home. Let's expand the role of
telemedicine so that if you are in Burns or Prairie City, OR, or other
small towns in America, you can have access to these technological
marvels when you don't have a neurologist or a specialist.
Make no mistake about it, what Mr. Pai is looking at is a
prescription for trouble for rural healthcare because they, like so
many of the people they serve, are going to face the prospect of those
toll booths, and they are going to pay more, in many cases, for less.
So I look forward to working with my colleague and listening to his
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, as we conclude this part of the debate, I
will just take note of the fact that the American Association of
Retired People today has come out in favor of the open internet order,
which is the restoring of net neutrality principles, which follows on
what the former head of the Gray Panthers, the Senator from the State
of Oregon, Mr. Wyden, raised today--the need to ensure that everyone
gets the full protection of net neutrality rules.
The votes we are about to cast are nothing short of the most
consequential votes on the internet in the history of this body. We
will take the important step to reaffirm the principles of
nondiscrimination online or we will allow a few companies to control
how we access the internet. We will stand up for the small app
developer with a bright idea to change the world or we give another
gift to the powerful corporate interests and their lobbyists in the
District of Columbia. We will take a stand to protect our online
economy or we will say goodbye to the internet as we know it.
In 2018, essentially every company is an internet company. In my
State of Massachusetts and in every other State, tech underpins the
economy of the United States today. In 2017, almost half of all venture
capital in the United States was invested into internet and software
startups. That is over $34 billion.
This is working. This is capitalism at its best. This is small
business being able to receive the capital it needs in order to start
new companies in our country. Small businesses are the ones that hire
new people who do innovation. That is what the venture capital industry
is indicating by pouring money into these smaller companies under a
regime of net neutrality.
So we found the secret recipe. When we take a democratized platform,
with endless opportunity for communication, and add American ingenuity,
the result is economic growth and innovation. What we are doing is
working. With net neutrality protections in place, there is no problem
that needs fixing.
This fight began when Senator Wyden and I introduced net neutrality
as legislation back more than a decade ago. I introduced it, Senator
Wyden introduced it, because we knew then the internet was the most
powerful and pervasive platform in the history of the world. Since
then, the importance of the internet has skyrocketed, and the movement
to protect it has followed suit. Millions of Americans are raising
their voices for net neutrality because they know the power of the
internet. They know it can categorize staggering commercial growth,
they know it can create endless connections, and they know it can
change the course of civilization in fractions of a second.
A vote against net neutrality is a vote to change the fundamental
character of the internet. A vote for net neutrality is a vote for
America's future. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote
yes on this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Thank you, Mr. President.
I have been recognized to close the debate on this motion. In a few
moments, we will be voting on the motion to proceed to this resolution.
I will be voting no and urge my colleagues to do so.
This debate is about a free and open internet, and it is also about a
thriving and innovative internet. We can have both. For decades, we
have had both, and we can continue to do so if we are smart about this.
Does every Senator in this Chamber believe in a free and open
internet? Yes.
Does every Member of this body want to prevent blocking and the
throttling of the internet? The answer is a resounding yes.
Does any Member of the Senate advocate, as my friend from
Massachusetts just suggested, that a company or two gets to set the
rules for the entire internet? Absolutely not.
Do all Senators and all Congressmen want the internet to be a source
of innovation and job creation and prosperity as it has been for a
quarter century? I hope so.
I hope we all want this information superhighway, this technology
superhighway to continue its success. I hope we all want the internet
to continue being that phenomenal platform for market competition,
health advancements, investment, technological progress, efficiency,
and safety. I hope we all want this.
If we all want this great engine to keep going, it is important to
ask how all this happened in the first place. How did we get here? How
did we arrive at this point in our Nation's history, with a dynamic
internet economy that is truly the envy of the world?
The answer lies in the creativity and ingenuity of the American
spirit. This has allowed the internet to thrive under the light-touch
regulatory framework that has governed the internet for most of its
history.
Let's revisit a little of that history. It was in 1996. I was a
freshman Member of the House of Representatives at this time under a
Democratic President, under a Democratic administration. Our country
was at a crossroads on how to govern this new thing called the
worldwide web, the internet. No one could have imagined the success of
the internet we have today, but policymakers had the foresight not to
regulate these new emerging information services like the services of a
bygone era.
Instead, in 1996, during the Clinton administration, a very
deliberative, thoughtful decision was made not to impose title II
rules--the same rules from the 1930s that were modeled for the Bell
monopolies, that were modeled for a time during the Great Depression.
That was the pivotal decision that allowed this great internet economy
to thrive and to be the success it is today.
Now let's fast-forward to recently, to 2015. That was the year the
FCC made an ill-advised decision to change all that. Despite explosive
growth, new applications, services, and consumer choice that the
internet was delivering to Americans, the FCC imposed these title II
rules, and that is what we are debating today. Almost immediately we
saw a chilling effect on investment and innovation. U.S. companies were
right to be uncertain about the archaic title II regulations and how
they would apply to modern technology.
Fortunately, this misguided action was reversed last year. The FCC
lifted the 2015 regulations and restored the light-touch regulatory
framework that has benefited consumers for almost two decades and has
resulted in this great success. Today, some in Congress are trying to
give the government more control again, applying utility-style
regulations that would threaten the internet as we know it. We should
reject these efforts.
Let me say this: Many of my colleagues correctly, on both sides of
the aisle, have been calling for bipartisan legislation to enshrine the
net neutrality principles into law--legislation which I support,
legislation which Members of the minority party have supported. If this
resolution passes today, it will amount to merely a statement, nothing
more.
[[Page S2698]]
Senator Thune will give Senators an opportunity to pass bipartisan
legislation today. I hope we will do that. I hope, once this statement
is made, we will move on to enshrining net neutrality principles into a
law that protects consumers and promotes innovation.
____________________