[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19842-19843]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             NET NEUTRALITY

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, earlier today, the FCC voted to reverse a 
major impediment to a free and open internet--the title II internet 
regulations that were imposed under President Obama in 2015. These 
regulations are commonly referred to as net neutrality. For the sake of 
convenience, that is what I will call it.
  I want to congratulate FCC Chairman Ajit Pai for his brave 
accomplishment today. He has fought for what he knows is right, and he 
has done so in the face of tremendous pressure and, at times, 
overwhelming opposition. I also want to use this opportunity to correct 
the record about what it is that the FCC has actually accomplished.
  There is an astonishing amount of misinformation about this issue, 
and there is a lot of hyperbole surrounding it. If you believe the 
passionate voices defending these regulations, then you may believe 
that the FCC just jeopardized the entire internet as we know and love 
it and sometimes loathe it. These activists tend to paint a scary 
vision of America without net neutrality--a vision in which large 
internet service providers prey on ordinary consumers and startup 
businesses, a vision in which internet access would be rationed or 
bundled up in very expensive, unaffordable packages. One viral tweet 
even suggested that Google would start charging two bucks apiece for 
internet searches.
  These are falsehoods, every one of them, and they will be exposed as 
such in the coming days, weeks, and months, when the internet hums 
right along just like usual and skyscrapers in all of our major cities 
remain standing. In the wake of that, we are going to look back at 
these dire predictions, these mere hysterics, like the Y2K bug or the 
Mayan apocalypse of 2012. In the present, these exaggerations have 
real-world consequences that go far above and beyond scaring the 
public.
  In the last 6 months, Chairman Pai and his family have been attacked 
in the grossest and most unacceptable

[[Page 19843]]

terms. Even his children have been singled out for intimidation. These 
kinds of attacks have absolutely no place in our public discourse. Why 
don't we tone down the rhetoric and see if we can get to the truth 
about net neutrality. We can start with a little background.
  In 2015, the Democratic-controlled FCC issued the so-called open 
internet order. This order made dramatic changes to how the internet is 
classified for purposes of Federal regulation.
  Until 2015, broadband internet was classified as an information 
service. As such, it was subject to light-touch regulations that 
allowed innovators to build without seeking permission from the Federal 
Government. This classification reflected common sense, and it 
reflected the intent of Congress.
  The internet is a fast-moving information superhighway. If slow-
moving government regulators had gotten involved decades ago, it could 
have inhibited innovation--the same kind of innovation that keeps 
service fast and keeps prices low for all Americans.
  Not only was this a commonsense arrangement, it facilitated a virtual 
renaissance of innovation and discovery in this increasingly important 
part of our economy. This renaissance gave us things like smartphones, 
ridesharing, and super-fast fiberoptic internet services. It gave us 
3G, 4G, and then, soon, 5G wireless service. This period also gave us 
Twitter. One could argue that maybe this wasn't all good but mostly 
good.
  Overall, the light-touch regulatory arrangement works pretty well for 
ordinary users, big companies, and entrepreneurs who are just starting 
out in their garages. Contrary to net neutrality's most aggressive 
defenders, the internet of 2014 was not some sort of hopeless 
hellscape; it was actually pretty awesome.
  The FCC threatened all of that in the early weeks of 2015 when it 
reclassified broadband internet as a ``telecommunications service.'' 
This innocuous-sounding change subjected the internet to a whole host 
of regulations that were originally meant for New Deal-era telephone 
monopolies like Ma Bell. In essence, the government imposed 1930s-style 
regulations on 21st-century technology. This outdated arrangement has 
worked about as well as one might expect. Broadband internet investment 
has fallen significantly since the net neutrality regulations were 
proposed in 2011. Dr. George Ford of the Phoenix Center estimates that 
between 2011 and 2015, just the threat of internet regulation scared 
off $200 billion in investment.
  Since the regulations were imposed in 2015, broadband internet 
investment has declined by 5.6 percent. That is billions of lost 
dollars over just 2 years. As Chairman Pai has noted, this is the first 
ever decline in broadband investment outside of a recession, and this 
recession just happens to be self-imposed. It may not seem like a big 
deal to you that government is squeezing out billions in internet 
investment, but it hurts you and it hurts your fellow citizens in 
material ways, in ways that might not always be obvious. Less 
investment means less fiber optic cable, fewer towers, and fewer wi-fi 
hotspots. This translates into spottier coverage and slower speeds for 
Americans, especially those living on the periphery of society, in 
poverty, or in rural areas. FCC regulations make it harder for these 
Americans to have equal access to the internet.
  These regulations have also entrenched the market power of large 
internet service providers while hurting their smaller competitors. By 
their very nature, regulations impose conformity on a market. They 
limit companies' ability to distinguish themselves from their rivals by 
offering innovative services. This works out fine for the companies at 
the top. They have already made it. In fact, it can work out really 
well for some of them. They can kick back without worrying about some 
young punk coming along and changing the game. It works out less well 
for the young punks, the startups who want to win customers away from 
old-school companies.
  That is how it works in theory, at least, and there is good evidence 
that this is exactly what is happening in practice. Small ISPs have 
been far more critical of net neutrality regulations than large ISPs. A 
group of two dozen small internet providers recently wrote that the 
regulations hang like a black cloud over their business, slowing or 
even halting their deployment of new technology. Likewise, 19 municipal 
internet providers told the FCC that they ``often delay or hold off'' 
on introducing new services because they cannot afford a potential 
complaint. Internet providers that serve predominantly rural areas have 
voiced similar concerns, reporting that they have reduced network 
expansion in parts of the country that are already underserved.
  These examples show that net neutrality regulations are harming 
competition and increasing the consolidation of power in the internet 
industry, not decreasing it. Internet regulations have, in effect, 
sheltered large ISPs from competition and from the need to change. Be 
sure to think about that the next time you are on hold with customer 
support.
  As Americans chart a path forward in the coming years, we will face 
an important choice: Do we want an internet that is run by regulators 
or do we want an internet that is run by innovators? The innovators 
have had a really strong track record over the last 30 years with 
regard to the internet. So they are the ones I am siding with, not with 
the regulators.
  How can we empower the innovators? More importantly, how can we 
empower the millions of families who rely on fast and reliable internet 
service each and every day?
  The FCC did its part by repealing net neutrality regulations and 
returning to the regulatory framework that governed the internet--
successfully, I would add--until 2015. This move reclassifies the 
internet as an information service, but it goes well beyond that. The 
FCC will require every ISP to disclose information about its network 
management practices. If these companies block or throttle web traffic, 
rest assured that the public will know about it.
  Importantly, this order restores enforcement power to the Federal 
Trade Commission to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive 
practices. The FTC had policed the internet successfully for years 
prior to 2015. Now the cop is back on the beat. The FCC's action today 
is a return to normalcy for the internet, but we should not rest easy. 
A future administration could undo all of Chairman Pai's hard work at a 
moment's notice if Congress doesn't act to solidify his accomplishment.
  Over the summer, I introduced legislation entitled the Restoring 
Internet Freedom Act, which would prohibit the FCC from imposing 
utility-style regulations on the internet ever again. Passing this act 
would give companies the regulatory certainty they need to invest in 
improvements for their customers. We should not discount how important 
Congress can be in determining the success or in directing the failure 
of things like the internet.
  In 1996 President Clinton and Congress inaugurated the light-touch 
regulations of the internet. They wanted the information superhighway 
to be unfettered by Federal or State regulations. They were rewarded--
and we were rewarded--with a tremendous outpouring of innovation that 
has improved the lives of, basically, all Americans and people 
throughout the world. I say that we emulate their wise example and see 
what free men and free women can invent in the next 20 years.
  Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________