[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 14 (Thursday, January 25, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S257-S258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if there is anything that keeps my Democrat 
colleagues up at night, I am pretty sure it is the specter of some 
aspect of society not being regulated by the Federal Government. How 
else to explain Democrats' tendency to propose heavyhanded government 
solutions to address nonexistent problems?
  There is no better example of a heavyhanded government solution to a 
nonexistent problem than the Biden Federal Communications Commission's 
recent push to impose burdensome net neutrality regulations.
  So what is net neutrality, Mr. President? Well, at its core, it is 
the idea that internet service providers shouldn't prioritize or block 
certain internet traffic at the expense of other traffic. Understood in 
that way, it is a concept that has strong bipartisan support, but that 
is not what we are talking about with the Biden FCC's proposal.
  The Biden FCC wants to use the idea of net neutrality as a cover to 
assert broad, new government powers over the internet using rules that 
were designed for telephone monopolies back during the Great 
Depression. The net neutrality regime the Biden FCC is contemplating 
was actually put in place once before--during the Obama 
administration--and the results were predictable.
  The Obama FCC's measure opened the door to a whole host of new 
government regulations, including price regulations, and broadband 
investment declined as a result. That was a problem for Americans 
generally, who benefit when the United States is at the forefront of 
internet growth and expansion. It was particularly bad news for 
Americans in rural States like South Dakota. Getting broadband to rural 
communities is already more challenging than installing broadband in 
cities and suburbs, and the possibility of heavier regulations acts as 
a further disincentive to expanding that access.
  Fast-forward to 2017. The FCC, under Chairman Pai, voted to repeal 
the heavyhanded net neutrality regulations passed by the Obama FCC--a 
prospect that was greeted with absolute hysteria from Democrats. We 
were told that the internet as we know it would disappear, that 
providers would slow speeds to a crawl, and if you can believe this, 
that our freedom of speech was threatened.
  Well, I don't think I need to tell anyone that none of what Democrats 
predicted came to pass. As anyone who has been on the internet lately 
knows, the internet has not just survived but thrived. Innovation has 
flourished. Competition has increased. The internet remains a vehicle 
for free and open discourse. And internet speeds have not only not 
slowed down, they have gotten faster and faster. Despite the explosive 
growth and internet usage during the pandemic, American networks had no 
problem keeping up with demand, delivering the reliable service 
Americans have come to expect.
  Let's contrast that with Europe, where internet regulation is much 
more heavyhanded and Europe struggled to deal with increased internet 
usage. In fact, European service providers slowed internet speeds to 
maintain connectivity.
  The United States is now a leader in adopting next-generation 
telecommunications services like 5G and advanced Wi-Fi while Europe 
struggles to keep pace.
  So, as I said, the Biden FCC's net neutrality proposal is a 
solution--and, I would argue, a heavyhanded government solution--in 
search of a problem, and it is likely to create problems where none 
currently exist.
  Given the Biden administration's demonstrated willingness to use its 
regulatory power to advance its far-left economic and social agendas, 
it is not hard to imagine the Biden administration using its new net 
neutrality powers to shape Americans' internet experience for its own 
ends. The FCC's net neutrality proposal could hasten the demise of the 
free and open internet it is allegedly--allegedly--supposed to protect.
  On the practical side, as FCC Commissioner Carr--a Republican 
appointee who opposes this proposal--has pointed out, there is also 
good reason to fear that this measure could drive up Americans' 
internet costs and open the door to new taxes and fees on Americans' 
internet bills.
  Of course, as I said, last time heavyhanded net neutrality 
regulations were put in place, broadband investment declined in 
response, and there is good reason to believe that the same thing would 
happen this time. The United States could quickly lose its place as a 
leader in internet technology, and Americans could lose out on the 
benefits of living in a country that is at the forefront of internet 
innovation.
  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to emphasize 
again just how much the Biden FCC's proposal is a solution in search of 
a problem. There is absolutely no reason--no reason--for heavyhanded 
government interference in a free, open, and thriving sector of our 
economy. There is every reason to oppose a proposal that would

[[Page S258]]

not only threaten to raise prices and decrease innovation but would 
give the Federal Government and the Biden administration a dangerous 
amount of control over Americans' internet experience.
  I have led a letter with more than 40 of my colleagues calling for 
the Biden FCC to abandon this just incredibly ill-advised proposal, and 
I will continue to urge my colleagues of both parties to oppose this 
alarming measure because if the Biden FCC has its way, we may soon find 
ourselves dealing with the very opposite of net neutrality.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.