[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15415-15417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          INTERNET NEUTRALITY

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have already announced that I will do 
everything I can to block Senate consideration of the major overhaul of 
the telecommunications laws until it contains language to ensure there 
cannot be discrimination on the Internet.
  Last week, I outlined a number of examples of the kind of 
discrimination that could take place unless there is language known as 
Net neutrality in the legislation. I am going to give additional 
examples this morning of what will happen if discrimination is allowed 
on the Net. I also intend to start laying out answers to some of the 
most frequently asked questions about Net neutrality.
  The major phone and cable companies that are now spending enormous 
sums trying to prevent Net neutrality so outspend the folks who share 
my views that I think it is important for the Senate to get a sense of 
what is going on. That is why it is my intent to come to the floor of 
the Senate again and again and again to outline what is at stake with 
respect to ensuring that the Internet is kept free of discrimination.
  Let me begin by first addressing this question of what exactly is Net 
neutrality. If you listen to some of the so-called experts about 
communications, they would suggest this is so complicated, so arcane, 
so difficult for anybody to understand, you ought to let the lawyers 
and the lobbyists sort this out. Of course, that is traditionally what 
has gone on in this field. You have lawyers and lobbyists being paid 
very handsomely to battle it out with each other, usually in 
Washington, DC, or in courtrooms across the country.
  Somehow, the typical person, the typical citizen, who has become 
empowered using the Internet, does not get to participate in these 
discussions. I will tell you, Mr. President, I do not think the 
American people are going to buy that any longer. The Internet, which, 
of course, has opened up so many doors for our citizens in terms of 
health care and business opportunities, education, and culture, has 
also ensured they get a lot of information about these communications 
debates that used to be reserved for lawyers and lobbyists.
  The people of this country--and the hundreds and hundreds of 
organizations that want to keep the Internet discrimination free--are 
no longer going to accept a notion that a handful of insiders in 
Washington, DC, can have these debates about the future of the 
communications systems they depend on, and that the people of this 
country will have to take what these so-called experts decide. So this 
is going to be a debate, in my view, that is going to be driven by the 
grassroots of this country, by thousands of people getting involved and 
coming to their legislators, and others, to talk about the future of 
telecommunications--why so much communication power is concentrated in 
so few hands.
  I am going to try to advance this debate here on the floor of the 
Senate every so often so we can make sure somebody is getting the 
message out about what is at stake, other than those big cable and 
phone companies that seem to be spending almost $150 for every $1 spent 
by folks who share my views.
  The first question I want to talk about this morning is what exactly 
is Net neutrality? It is not that complicated. It is a pretty 
straightforward proposition. What Net neutrality means is you cannot 
discriminate on the Internet. The people who are against Net 
neutrality--I call them ``the discriminators'' because that is their 
agenda--want to discriminate. They want to be in a position to play 
favorites. They want to say: We will give certain people a good deal, 
both in terms of service and all the considerations that go into folks 
making their choices on line.
  I do not think we should have that kind of discrimination. I think it 
ought to be, as it is today, possible for our citizens to go with their 
browser where they want to go, when they want to go, and everybody 
would be treated equally. That is the way it works today. I do not 
think there ought to be any changes.
  Today, somebody pays a fee to get on the Net. They go where they 
want, when they want. And if you want to buy something online from 
Harry & David--their wonderful fruit, which we know a lot about in the 
State of Oregon--you pay your Internet provider for the connection, 
Harry & David pays its Internet provider for its connection, and that 
is that. Once you pay your Internet access fee, no one stops you from 
shopping at Harry & David because you did not pay an extra fee.
  Without a clear policy preserving Net neutrality and ensuring there 
is no discrimination on the Net, the Net would be forever changed. And, 
in my view, it would be forever changed if discrimination is allowed on 
the Internet.
  So that is why I have indicated I am going to use every procedural 
tool I have as a Senator to block Senate consideration of the 
telecommunications overhaul until it ensures there is Net neutrality 
and no discrimination online.
  Now, a second question I am often asked is people want to know, as a 
consumer: How will Net neutrality affect me? For starters, keeping 
things the way they are, keeping Net neutrality, is not going to change 
anything about the Net for millions and millions of our consumers who 
rely on it. Net neutrality has been the way we have enjoyed the Net 
since day one. And it is only in the last year that there has been this 
new front opened up where folks say: We have to be allowed to 
discriminate. It has only been in the last year where the basic 
nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet has been under attack.
  So it is not going to change the world for the consumer if Net 
neutrality is preserved. But I will tell you, it is surely a troubling 
question for consumers

[[Page 15416]]

if we do not have Net neutrality. Consumers, in my view, without Net 
neutrality, would immediately feel the effects. They would have fewer 
choices, and they would pay higher prices. And I am going to try, 
again, to use some examples this morning of why that is the case.
  Currently, consumers pay a fee for connecting to the Internet. The 
fee is for a certain amount of bandwidth. The more bandwidth you buy, 
the faster the speed with which you connect to the Internet. So with a 
dial-up connection at 56 kilobits per second of bandwidth, it is going 
to take a lot longer to get your favorite Web sites than with a high-
speed connection at 6 megabits per second. That is why some folks call 
broadband high speed. A broader bandwidth can accommodate more bits, 
and they can move faster down the pipes. A growing number of our 
citizens want the higher speed or broadband connection to the Net.
  If the large phone and cable lobbies are able to stop Net neutrality, 
consumers would no longer have access to all the content available on 
the bandwidth they buy. Rather, those that provide content on the Net--
and that is everybody with a Web site, from small nonprofits and 
universities to large corporations--would be forced to pay the big 
phone and cable companies an extra fee for access to the consumer's 
bandwidth. If they did not pay or could not afford to pay these extra 
fees, their content would be waylaid, it would be off on the Internet 
slow lane.
  This would mean consumers would have fewer Web site choices. Some 
small businesses that depend on the Net for sales, in my view, will end 
up closing down. Many of the bloggers--and we know that now blogging is 
awfully popular; these are folks who write just to be heard--they are 
going to find it hard to continue without Net neutrality if they have 
to pay those extra fees. Nonprofits--I am not sure we will see all 
their Web sites. At the end of the day, without Net neutrality, 
consumers will be left with fewer choices.
  That is not all that consumers will be left with. Because the loss of 
Net neutrality is double-barreled discrimination, consumers would also 
be left with higher prices. Those companies that choose to pay fees to 
the larger phone and cable companies are going to pass those fees on to 
the consumer. The price of goods sold online is going to rise because 
companies will pass on the fees to consumers. And because no one can 
determine now how high the fees are going to go, no one can predict how 
high the price of goods sold online would go either.
  So that is a little bit of what all this means to the typical 
consumer. It does mean, in my view, higher prices and fewer choices for 
the reasons I outlined. But I thought I would continue what I started 
last week; that is, bringing some specific examples I think we will see 
on the Internet if there is an absence of Net neutrality.
  The first example I am going to cite this morning is somebody I am 
going to call Josh Nelson. Josh Nelson wants to get Internet broadband 
for himself and his family at home. ``Local Cable'' is the only choice 
for Internet access, and we will say it charges $49.99 for a 6 megabit 
per second connection.
  In a world with Net neutrality, when Josh buys his connection from 
``Local Cable,'' he gets to visit any Web site he wants, when he wants, 
and how he wants. If he wants, for example, to download movies from the 
popular Vongo for $10 a month, he can do that. If he wants to search 
the Web using Yahoo or book a family vacation online at Travelocity, 
Josh can do that, too.
  Under the bill that has come from the Senate Commerce Committee--the 
bill that does not protect Net neutrality--Josh will not be able to do 
any of those kinds of things I have described unless content providers 
pay a new priority access fee on top of the $49.99 Internet access 
charge Josh already pays, and the fees the content providers pay to get 
on the Net.
  Unless Travelocity pays the additional priority fee, booking that 
vacation at Travelocity could take 20 minutes to process because they 
are not paying the extra fee to ``Local Cable'' for priority access. 
Downloading movies at Vongo could cost more as well, could cost $20 
rather than $10 because Vongo is passing on the costs of paying ``Local 
Cable'' the priority access fee.
  Josh at this point--and this is as sure as night follows day in terms 
of what is ahead--is going to want to switch to another broadband 
provider, given all these extra costs he would have to eat. But he is 
stuck. There are no other choices for many people across the land.
  The second example I want to outline involves somebody I am calling 
Mary Smith. Mary goes on line now through a broadband connection with a 
local Bell company to purchase a television from her local electronics 
store, Barnes Electronics. In a world with net neutrality, when Mary 
goes to Barnes Electronics web site, the site works properly and she 
can purchase the new television with ease. Under the legislation that 
came from the Senate Commerce Committee, it is going to be a different 
world for Mary. When she types in the web address for Barnes 
Electronics, the site may not immediately load. Instead a page could 
load asking her if she would prefer to shop at Big Box Electronics web 
site which paid the local Bell to interrupt Mary's browsing. After 
clicking no, she is directed to Barnes Electronics web site. However, 
the site takes a long time to load and she becomes so frustrated, she 
says: Well, I will just go shopping at Big Box and eat all those higher 
prices.
  In each of these examples, those who own the pipes extend their reach 
to the detriment of the American people. According to the business 
plans--and these have not exactly been hidden--of the big phone and 
cable companies and what they tell Wall Street, the kind of world I 
describe is what we are heading for. Without net neutrality, neither of 
the people in the examples I just outlined would enjoy the Internet the 
way they enjoy it today.
  One last question for purposes of this morning. I am often asked now: 
If we have net neutrality, does that mean we are not going to have 
sophisticated communications networks built in my neighborhood? Of 
course, we all want these sophisticated communications systems. Folks 
want them in Georgia, in Oregon, across the land. We all understand the 
value of constantly trying to upgrade our communications systems. 
Nobody wants policies that create disincentives to building new and 
improved communications networks. For years cable companies have been 
digging up the streets in neighborhoods across the land to build more 
sophisticated networks, even though net neutrality protections were in 
place. For all these years, when we have said we were not going to 
allow discrimination on the Internet, we have had the cable companies 
out there digging up the streets putting in these systems. So it is not 
as if we don't have some evidence of what you can do when the Internet 
is free of discrimination.
  We have seen these sophisticated networks built by cable companies 
right now. They are doing it when there is an absence of discrimination 
on the net. The reason I cited this is, it proves that if consumers 
demand it, the communications companies are going to build it because 
they can make a profit. The Bells, for example, would rather build a 
network with discrimination in it because they can make billions of 
dollars of extra profit. That is why they are threatening not to build 
networks and to try to hold hostage consumers and businesses across 
America. I don't think that is right. There is concrete evidence that 
this notion that we will not have sophisticated communications networks 
unless we allow discrimination on the net makes no sense at all.
  I have tried to make a focus of my career in public service to 
keeping the Internet free from discrimination. It has paid real 
dividends already, particularly in regard to taxation. I was a Senate 
sponsor of the legislation that prohibited discrimination in taxes on 
line. When we started, it was a very simple proposition. We would see, 
for example, that if you bought a newspaper on line, you paid taxes. 
But if you bought the snail mail version of that newspaper, you didn't 
pay any taxes. So Congress came together on a bipartisan basis and 
said: We are not

[[Page 15417]]

going to allow discrimination and taxation with respect to the 
Internet. We have done it. It has made sense.
  For all those who claimed there were going to be dire consequences, 
that the States and localities wouldn't have any money, that it was 
going to kill the traditional retailer, the main street retailer, we 
haven't seen any of that. The Internet Nondiscrimination Act as it 
relates to taxation has made a huge difference. I worked with Senator 
Allen on the other side of the aisle on that. Our mutual friend, former 
Congressman Chris Cox, who now heads the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, he and I began this effort when he was serving in the other 
body. We have seen already, with respect to ensuring that the net is 
free from multiple and discriminatory taxes, why it makes sense to keep 
the Internet a discrimination free zone.
  For the life of me, I can't figure out why we want to bring 
discrimination back to the telecommunications world, which is what this 
telecommunications overhaul will do, unless net neutrality is 
protected. The major cable and phone companies have spent more than $40 
million since January of this year to make the American people think 
that net neutrality is what they call a lose-lose proposition. I am 
here to say that the absence of net neutrality will be the lose-lose 
proposition. The American people will see discrimination in Internet 
content, higher prices for consumers, and that is why hundreds of 
organizations that span the political spectrum, who disagree with each 
other on virtually everything, have come together to say: We are going 
to pull out all the stops to try to protect the Internet from 
discrimination.
  I do not want to see the American consumer face the double barrel 
discrimination on the net of reduced choices in content, diminished 
services, and the additional prospect of higher prices. As a result, it 
is my intent to keep my hold on this major telecommunications rewrite 
until it ensures true net neutrality and an Internet free of 
discrimination.

                          ____________________