[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16072-16073]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             NET NEUTRALITY

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to call the Senate's 
attention to one of the most important economic issues before us, and 
that is the issue of Net neutrality.
  We face a pivotal moment in the fight to preserve an open and fair 
Internet. Last week, the President called on the FCC to protect the 
bedrock principle of Net neutrality.
  A strong, open Internet is one of the best ways to protect the 
innovation that supports millions of American jobs. It is one of the 
best ways to protect the competitiveness of the digital economy.
  Now the FCC is working on formulating ways to protect a robust 
Internet. We know that the FCC received over 4 million comments on the 
issue of Net neutrality, and it registered many concerns by the public 
in making sure that we protect what has been a great resource for them.
  They have spoken. They want to protect innovation, and they want to 
protect a free Internet.
  Consumers should know for a fact that their Internet service is being 
held to the same standards as everywhere else. But we know now there 
are concerns about the concentration of players in the cable and large 
telephone market as it continues to develop. Maybe two providers will 
provide as much as 85 percent of the provider market, which raises 
concerns to many consumers.
  Today I am calling on the FCC to take forceful action that adopts the 
strongest rule possible to provide maximum protection for consumers--
maximum flexibility to promote the Internet economy.
  I encourage the FCC to adopt robust and durable rules to prevent 
locking, throttling, fast lanes, and to safeguard transparency for 
consumers. These rules should apply both to the wired and wireless 
broadband networks so that your Web browser, your personal computer, 
your apps on your phone, all are treated in the same way.
  This important policy would provide certainty to startup and business 
communities the same way as it will to support the Fortune 500 
companies. In other words, we will treat an entrepreneur who started 
their company in their garage the same way we treat a big multinational 
corporation.
  We need to send a clear message: We do not want artificial toll lanes 
on the innovation economy of the future. It is my hope the FEC arrives 
at a conclusion next year and issues these rules. The Internet has been 
an engine for unprecedented economic growth for our country. Today, the 
text-up sector represents 3.9 millions jobs, according to Pew Research, 
and it is continuing to grow. It really does represent the American 
entrepreneurial spirit.
  YouTube was created in a garage in San Mateo; Facebook launched in a 
dorm room in Cambridge, MA; Amazon--when Jeff Bezos came to Bellevue, 
WA--has now become a juggernaut in downtown Seattle for new growth and 
development. These companies might have started in a garage, but they 
are supporting thousands of jobs across our country.
  So today we want to make sure the Internet is not under attack by 
those who would prefer a pay-for-play system. The biggest telecom 
companies are trying to write the rules of the road that would crowd 
out some of these opportunities for unique entrepreneurs to continue to 
grow the application economy of the future. That is why we can't allow 
Internet service providers to set up fast lanes for those who can pay 
and slow lanes for those who can't. Our innovation economy depends on 
equal access for ideas.
  Between 2007 and 2012, development of applications for smart phones 
and tablets created over 466,000 high-tech jobs and generated more than 
$20 billion in annual revenue. A tiered Internet system would put all 
of that at risk. It would allow Internet service providers to cut back 
from the deals to determine what information America can access on 
line.
  We live in an economy based on speed, and a tiered Internet system 
would give the power to set speed limits to those few Internet service 
providers and what they wanted to do. This has a major ripple effect. 
Imagine your doctor examining a patient via telemedicine or a student 
trying to access a report through a university server, all of this put 
at challenge by whether they have fast access.
  As an editorial in the Seattle Times said: America's democracy is in 
trouble when information is throttled or controlled by a few. The FEC 
must reverse this shameful trend.
  What they are really trying to say is that creating additional 
barriers is tantamount, in my mind, to creating a tax on the Internet. 
A tiered Internet provider would have the range of control, and it 
means that individual users could be challenged. Strong Net neutrality 
rules will help maintain the same Internet we have today, and that is 
why the FEC should act.
  Across the country, innovators, entrepreneurs, are experimenting with 
different app designs and different content creation and they rely on 
this open Internet to pursue those new business models. Nearly every 
startup relies on understanding that their product can reach any user 
connected to the Internet. So allowing Internet service providers to 
erect toll lanes would threaten the fundamental nature of the Internet 
and every business plan of every startup that relies on the consumer's 
ability for equal access to content.
  We must do better than what has been done so far, and I encourage 
this body to make sure we too are going to stand up and protect the 
American spirit of entrepreneurship by making sure that Net neutrality 
is the law of the land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  (The remarks of Mr. Whitehouse pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2940 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank my colleague for allowing me the extra time, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 16073]]



                          ____________________