[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 8372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF THE ``INTERNET FREEDOM AND NONDISCRIMINATION ACT OF 
                                 2008''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 8, 2008

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Internet 
Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,'' legislation that 
establishes an antitrust remedy for anticompetitive and discriminatory 
practices by broadband service providers. I am joined by Representative 
Lofgren.
  Over the last ten years, the Internet has gone from its infancy 
through a period of exponential growth. Today, it is estimated that 
over 1.3 billion people use the Internet--that is almost 20 percent of 
the world's population. In the last 7 years alone, the worldwide use of 
the Internet has jumped 265 percent.
  The Internet has become the dominant venue for the expression of 
ideas and public discourse. From social networking to get-out-the-vote 
drives, the Internet is now a leading tool for speech and action. Web 
sites like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Monster have changed the 
way people of all ages connect socially and professionally. Political 
candidates raise more money online with each election cycle. Newspaper 
Web sites and independent blogs have revolutionized the ways in which 
news and media are disseminated and consumed. And the Internet has 
opened up new performance venues to emerging artists and entertainers. 
In these and many other ways, the technological innovation in 
communication made possible by the Internet has made it among the most 
powerful outlets for creativity and free speech.
  However, some of the Internet Service Providers, which control 96 
percent of the residential market for high-speed Internet access, and 
are either monopolies or duopolies in most areas of the country, have 
proposed to give favored treatment to some Internet content and 
disfavored treatment to other content. Under these proposed business 
models, what treatment you get will be determined by how much you pay 
or, potentially, whether the Internet service provider approves of the 
content or whether the provider has a financial interest at stake. 
Under these regimes, many of the innovations and ideas that we have 
enjoyed on the Internet may never have occurred. We would never have 
had a Google search engine or YouTube videos if ``pay to play'' had 
been our national policy. To be sure, if we go in this direction, it 
will stifle both future technological innovation and free speech.
  Rather than attempt regulation of the industry, we believe an 
antitrust remedy is the most appropriate way to deal with the problem. 
The antitrust laws exist to correct distortions of the free market, 
where monopolies or cartels have cornered the market, and competition 
is not being allowed to work. The antitrust laws can help maintain a 
free and open Internet.
  The ``Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2008'' amends the 
Clayton Act to require that broadband service providers interconnect 
with the facilities of other network providers on a reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory basis. It also requires them to operate their network 
in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner so that all content, 
applications and services are treated the same and have an equal 
opportunity to reach consumers. The bill expressly preserves the 
ability of broadband service providers to manage their network, so long 
as it is done in a nondiscriminatory manner, and the bill allows the 
operators to give priority to emergency communications and take 
reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to prevent violations of the 
law.
  Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone and 
everything. The Internet was designed without gatekeepers for new 
content and services and without centralized control. If we allow 
companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet 
operates, start-up companies might never be able to offer their 
products, network providers could have the power to choose what content 
is available, and the artists and thinkers of our time could find their 
speech censored.

                          ____________________