[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6754-6755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           INTRODUCTION OF ``NETWORK NEUTRALITY ACT OF 2006''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 2, 2006

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Network 
Neutrality Act of 2006.'' Joining me today as original cosponsors of 
this important legislation are Rep. Rick Boucher, Rep. Anna Eshoo and 
Rep. Jay Inslee.
  Broadband networks, Mr. Speaker, are the lifeblood of our emerging 
digital economy. These broadband networks also hold the promise of 
promoting innovation in various markets and technologies, creating 
jobs, and furthering education. The worldwide leadership that the U.S. 
provides in high technology is directly related to the government-
driven policies over decades which have ensured that telecommunications 
networks are open to all lawful uses and all users. The Internet, which 
is accessible to more and more Americans with every day that goes by on 
such broadband networks, was also founded upon an open architecture 
protocol and as a result it has provided low barriers to entry for web-
based content, applications, and services.
  Recent decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and 
court interpretations, however, put these aspects of broadband networks 
and the Internet in jeopardy. The corrosion of historic policies of 
nondiscrimination by the imposition of bottlenecks by broadband network 
owners endanger economic growth, innovation, job creation, and First 
Amendment freedom of expression on such networks. Broadband network 
owners should not be able to determine who can and who cannot offer 
services over broadband networks or over the Internet. The detrimental 
effect to the digital economy would be quite severe if such conduct 
were permitted and became widespread.
  This network neutrality bill has essentially three parts. The first 
part articulates overall broadband and network neutrality goals for the 
country, and spells out exactly what network neutrality means and puts 
it into the statute so that it will possess the force of law. The 
second part embodies reasonable exceptions to the general rules, such 
as to route emergency communications or offer consumer protection 
features, such as spam blocking technology. And the final part of the 
bill features an expedited complaint process to deal with grievances 
and violations within thirty days.
  The legislation states that a broadband network provider may not 
block, impair, degrade or discriminate against the ability of any 
person to use a broadband connection to access the content, 
applications, and services available on broadband networks, including 
the Internet. It ensures that broadband network providers operate their 
networks in a nondiscriminatory manner. The bill also ensures that 
consumers can attach any device to the broadband operator's network, 
such as an Internet phone, or wi-fi router, or settop box, or any other 
innovative gadget invented in the coming years. Moreover, in order to 
prevent the warping of the World Wide Web into a system of ``tiered 
service,'' the legislation will prevent broadband providers from 
charging new bottleneck fees for enhanced quality of service or the 
prioritization of bits.
  Finally, if a broadband provider chooses to prioritize data of any 
type, it requires that it do so for all data of that type and not 
charge a fee for such prioritization. For instance, if a broadband 
provider wants to prioritize the transmission of bits representing a 
VOIP phone call for its own VOIP service, it must do so for all VOIP 
services so as not to put its competitors at an arbitrary disadvantage.
  Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of Internet time until August of 
2005, the Internet's nondiscriminatory nature was safeguarded from 
being compromised by Federal Communications Commission rules that 
required nondiscriminatory treatment by telecommunications carriers. In 
other words, no commercial telecommunications carrier could engage in 
discriminatory conduct regarding Internet traffic and Internet access 
because it was prohibited by law.
  In August of 2005, however, the Federal Communications Commission 
reclassified broadband access to the Internet in a way which removed 
such legal protections. And how did the industry respond to this 
change? Just a few weeks after the FCC removed the Internet's 
protections, the Chairman of then-SBC Communications made the following 
statement in a November 7th Business Week interview: ``Now what they 
[Google, Yahoo, MSN] would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't 
going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we 
have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some 
mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion 
they're using. . . .''
  In a December 1, 2005 Washington Post article, a BellSouth executive 
indicated that his company wanted to strike deals to give certain Web 
sites priority treatment in reaching computer users. The article noted 
this would ``significantly change how the Internet operates'' and that 
the BellSouth executive said ``his company should be allowed to charge 
a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its service can operate with 
the same quality as BellSouth's offering.'' Meaning, that if the rival 
firm did not pay, or was not permitted to pay for competitive reasons, 
its service presumably would not ``operate with the same quality'' as 
BellSouth's own product.
  Finally, on January 6, 2006, the CEO of Verizon, in an address to the 
Consumer Electronics Show also indicated that Verizon would now be the 
corporate arbiter of how traffic would be treated when he said the 
following: ``We have to make sure [content providers] don't sit on our 
network and chew up our capacity.''
  I think these statements should give pause to those who might argue 
that we shouldn't do anything to enact strong network neutrality 
provisions because currently no harm is being done.
  Do we really have to wait till these corporate giants divide and 
conquer the open architecture of the Internet to make that against the 
law? These telephone company executives are telling us that they intend 
to discriminate in the prioritization of bits and to discriminate

[[Page 6755]]

in the offering of ``quality of service'' functions--for a new fee, a 
new broadband bottleneck toll--to access high bandwidth customers, we 
cannot afford to wait until they actually start doing that before we 
step in to stop it.
  Once they start making money by leveraging that bottleneck position 
in the marketplace, will a future Congress really stare them down and 
take that revenue stream away?
  Mr. Speaker, if we don't protect the openness of the Internet for 
entrepreneurial activity, we're ruining a wonderful model for low 
barrier entry, innovation, and job creation. Broadband network owners 
should not be able to determine who can and who cannot offer services 
over broadband networks or over the Internet. The detrimental effect to 
the digital economy would be quite severe if such conduct were 
permitted and became widespread. The deterioration of significant 
policies of nondiscrimination by the imposition of artificial 
bottlenecks by broadband network owners imperil economic growth, 
innovation, job creation, and First Amendment freedom of expression on 
such networks.
  The Network Neutrality Act of 2006 offers Members a clear choice. It 
is a choice between favoring the broadband designs of a small handful 
of very large companies, and safeguarding the dreams of thousands of 
inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses. This legislation is 
designed to save the Internet and thwart those who seek to 
fundamentally and detrimentally alter the Internet as we know it. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill and urge the House to take 
a decisive stand in favor of network neutrality.

                          ____________________