Ajit Pai FCC Net Neutrality Transcript Feb 26 2015

Ajit Pai FCC Net Neutrality Transcript Feb 26 2015

IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
TO OFFER SERVICES INSTEAD OF OR
IN COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE
ACTORS.
SEPARATELY, I WOULD LIKE TO
CLARIFY ANY MISPERCEPTION THAT I
AM AGAINST PREEMPTION AS A
GENERAL MATTER.
WHILE I SUPPORT THE BASIC
PREMISE OF FEDERALISM, I EMBRACE
THE REALITIES AND BENEFITS OF A
COMMUNICATION MARKETPLACE THAT
DOES NOT RECOGNIZE POLITICAL
BORDERS OF YESTERDAY.
FOR INSTANCE, I HAVE NO
DIFFICULTIES PREEMPTING STATE
AND LOCAL RESTRICTIONS ON
WIRELESS TOWER ANTENNA SITING.
I'VE ALSO WORKED EXTENSIVELY IN
MY CAREER TO PREEMPT STATE AND
LOCAL BURDENS ON THE OFFERING OF
INTERNET APPLICATIONS, SUCH AS
VOIP.
SO IT SHOULDN'T COME TO ANYONE'S
SURPRISE THAT I FIRMLY BELIEVE
THAT THE INTERNET IS AN
INTERSTATE SERVICE, WHILE MAKING
A FINDING UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT THAT SERVICES
INTERSTATE IS NOT SUFFICIENT,
PARTICULARLY WHEN PREEMPTION
WOULD TRENCH THE STATE'S
ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONDUCTING
THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS.
THE MISSING INGREDIENT THAT IS
ESSENTIAL TO TRIGGER PREEMPTION
IS CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION
VIA THE STATUTE.
IF CONGRESS ENACTS LEGISLATION
TO PREEMPT STATE LAW.
AS MY COLLEAGUE HAS HIGHLIGHTED
A NUMBER OF THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN
INTRODUCED OVER THE YEARS, TO
FURTHER MUNICIPAL BROADBAND,
THAN I WILL IMPLEMENT IT
POSTHASTE.
THAT KEY INGREDIENT, HOWEVER, IS
NOT PRESENT HERE.
THE ORDER RELIES ON AN ILLOGICAL
AND TORTURED READING OF SECTION
706 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ACT TO ASSERT AUTHORITY.
I'VE PREVIOUSLY EXPRESS MIGHT
VIEWS ON THIS TOPIC AND THEY
HAVEN'T CHANGED.
TO JUST REITERATE JUST ONE
PORTION OF MY CONCERNS, THE FCC
CLAIMS THAT ITS AUTHORITY UNDER
SECTION 706 IS NOT UNBOUND
BECAUSE IT MAY ACT ONLY WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF ITS
EVER-BROADENING SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION, AND ITS ACTIONS
MUST BE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE TO ENCOURAGE
THE DEPLOYMENT ON A REASONABLE
AND TIMELY BASIS OF ADVANCED
COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY TO ALL
AMERICANS.
BUT AS JUDGE -- COMMENTED ON HIS
VERY PHRASE, QUOTE, THIS IS AN
ALMOST MEANINGLESS LIMITATION.
ANY REGULATION IN THE FCC'S
JUDGMENT WOULD ARGUABLY MAKE THE
INTERNET BETTER, COULD INCREASE
DEMAND.
I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS LIMITATION
PREVENTS 706 FROM BEING CARTE
BLANCHE TO ISSUE ANY REGULATION
THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT
BELIEVE TO BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
END QUOTE.
IN THIS ITEM, WE SEE THAT
PREDICTION COME TRUE.
INDEED, ANYTHING THAT MAY INCENT
THE USE OF THE INTERNET NOW
APPARENTLY IS FAIR GAME FOR FCC
REGULATION.
YET EVEN IF I BELIEVE THAT
SECTION 706 PROVIDED SOME
GENERAL AUTHORITY, WHICH I DO
NOT, AND NOWHERE DOES SECTION
1 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, IT
CERTAINLY DOES NOT CONTAIN THE
CLEAR STATEMENT THAT THE SUPREME
COURT HAS SAID IS A PREREQUISITE
FOR PREEMPTING A STATE'S CONTROL
OF ITS MUNICIPALITIES.
ON THE CONTRARY, SECTION
706 EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATES A
JOINT FEDERAL-STATE ROLE IN
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT.
WE ARE TOLD, HOWEVER, THAT THE
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS DON'T
APPLY HERE FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE, THIS IS AN AREA THAT THERE
HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF
SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL PRESENCE,
AND TWO, THE LAWS AT ISSUE HERE
DO NOT CONSTITUTE FLAT BANS ON
THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL
BROADBAND.
BOTH ARGUMENTS ARE UNAVAILING
AND, THEREFORE, THE PRESUMPTION
AGAINST PREEMPTION MUST APPLY
HERE.
FIRST THE ORDER BROADLY DEFINES
THE AREA OF SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL
PRESENCE AS INTERSTATE
COMMUNICATIONS POLICY.
HOWEVER, THE PETITIONS ARE
PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON THE
NARROWER QUESTION OF WHERE
SERVICE MAY BE PROVIDED, AND
THAT IS A CORE FUNCTION OF THE
STATE, AS STATE OF TENNESSEE
NOTED, WHILE THE COMMISSION MAY
REGULATE TELECOMMUNICATION
SERVICE THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNIT IS AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW
TO PROVIDE, THE COMMISSION
CANNOT EXPAND THE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNIT SINCE ANY SUCH
ACTION WOULD EXCEED THE POWERS
OF A FEDERAL AGENCY AND
MANIFESTLY INFRINGE ON A
SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE COMMISSION
CANNOT MANDATE THAT A STATE
AUTHORIZE A MUNICIPALITY TO
OFFER BROADBAND.
IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.
FURTHERMORE, THE TYPES OF
RESTRICTIONS UNDER SCRUTINY ARE
NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIC TO
COMMUNICATIONS POLICY.
FOR EXAMPLE, STATES MAY REQUIRE
REF REN DA ON A VARIETY OF
SPENDING OR OTHER MATTERS.
THE FACT THAT A STATE MAY
REQUIRE ONE FOR MUNICIPAL
BROADBAND DOES NOT NECESSARILY
MEAN THAT ITS BEING IMPOSED TO
AFFECT THE STATE'S COMMUNICATION
POLICY PREFERENCES.
INDEED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REF
REN DA HAVE A LONG AND WELL
REGARDED H HISTORY IN THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL TRADITION.
MORE OVER -- DO NOT NECESSARILY
CONFLICT WITH THE COMMISSION'S
ROLE IN REGULATING INTERSTATE
COMMUNICATIONS.
FOR EXAMPLE, RESTRICTIONS TRULY
DESIGNED TO PREVENT CROSS
SUBSIDIZATION CAN BE CONSISTENT
WITH EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS
POLICY, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
BUSINESS PLANNING AND
FEASIBILITY STUDIES ARE SIMILAR
TO FCC RULES THAT ENSURE THAT
ITS OWN FUNDING RECIPIENTS ARE
TECHNICALLY AND FINANCIALLY
QUALIFIED.
ARE WE REALLY STRIKING DOWN A
REQUIREMENT THAT A MUNICIPALITY
HAVE A COGENT BUSINESS PLAN?
SECOND, THE ORDER TURNS ON
ITS -- TURNS PRECEDENT ON ITS
HEAD TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
PREEMPT ANY RESTRICTION THAT
FALLS SHORT OF AN OUTRIGHT BAN.
FINDING THAT THE STATE
PROVISIONS AT ISSUE HERE ARE NOT
FLAT BANS, THE ORDER TOSSES THE
RELEVANT TENNESSEE PROVISION AND
PROCEEDS LINE BY LINE THROUGH
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE TO
ELIMINATE WHAT IT SEES FIT.
IN DOING SO, THE ORDER IGNORES
HOW BOTH THE CITY OF WILSON AND
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
INTERPRET THEIR OWN STATUTE AND
THE RELIEF PETITIONERS ACTUALLY
SOUGHT.
IN ESSENCE, THE OVERLY BROAD
EXTENSION OF THIS ITEM WOULD
OVERRULE CERTAIN SOUND
RESTRICTIONS JUSTIFIED BY THE
USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDING SUCH AS
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND VOTING
REQUIREMENTS, EVEN THOUGH WHEN I
MET WITH THE CITY OF WILSON,
THEY SAID THEY COULD LIVE WITH
THEM.
LET ME REPEAT THAT.
THE CITY OF WILSON WAS
COMPLETELY AGREEABLE TO MOST OF
THE RESTRICTIONS AND PREVIOUSLY
COMPLIED WITH THEM, BUT SOMEHOW
WE NEED TO PREEMPT THEM.
MOREOVER, THE ORDER IS DOWNRIGHT
HOSTILE TO STATES ACCUSING THEM
OF PASSING LAWS THAT ARE
ALLEGEDLY BUT DO NOT ACTUALLY
PROTECT TAXPAYER RISK.
IT SEEMS THAT NO PROTECTION
ENACTED BY A STATE, NO MATTER
HOW BENEFICIAL TO IT TAXPAYERS,
COULD SURVIVE THE FCC'S
UNVARNISHED SKEPTICISM.
IN FACT, THE ONLY RESTRICTION
THAT MAY SURVIVE OF THE
COMMISSION'S READING OF SECTION
706 IS A STATE LAW IMPOSING A
FLAT BAN, WHICH SEEMS
SHORT-SIGHTED AND
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
THAT IS, THE ORDER MAY ENCOURAGE
STATES THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE RISKS OF MUNICIPAL BROADBAND
TO PROHIBIT IT ALL TOGETHER,
RATHER THAN PERMIT IT UNDER
CAREFULLY TAILORED CONDITIONS
THAT ENSURE SUCH PROJECTS WILL
BE SUCCESSFUL AND NOT BURDENS ON
TAXPAYERS.
I'M DEEPLY TROUBLED BY THE
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THIS
ORDER.
MUNICIPAL BROADBAND NETWORKS
HAVE A HISTORY OF OVERPROMISING
AND UNDERDELIVERRING, LEAVING
TAXPAYERS AT RISK.
WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLES WHERE A
MUNICIPAL BROADBAND PROJECT THAT
FAILED DID SO DUE TO
COMPETITION, POOR PLANNING OR
UNETHICAL PRACTICES.
THAT'S THE VERY SCENARIO AND
CONDUCT THAT STATES ARE TRYING
TO REMEDY BY REQUIRING A RIGHT
OF FIRST REFUSAL TO PRIVATE
SECTOR BROADBAND PROVIDER,
BUSINESS PLANS, FEASIBILITY
STUDIES, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND
REF REN DA.
FINALLY, I HAVE TO WONDER IF ALL
OF THIS IS FOR NAUGHT.
MUNICIPAL BROADBAND PROVIDERS
LIKE ALL OVER ISPs WILL NOW BE
SUBJECT TO TITLE II REGULATIONS.
NOTABLY, DOZENS OF THESE
PROVIDERS OPPOSE
RECLASSIFICATION BECAUSE IN
THEIR OWN WORDS T IT WILL
UNDERMINE THE DISMODEL THAT
SUPPORTS OUR NETWORKS, RAISES
OUR COSTS AND HINDERS OUR
ABILITY TO FURTHER DEPLOY
BROADBAND.
IT IS AN ODD RESULT INDEED TO
PREEMPT A NUMBER OF STATE RULES
IN THE NAME OF REMOVING BARRIERS
TO BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ONLY TO
REIMPOSE EXTENSIVE NEW BARRIERS
IN THEIR PLACE.
IN SUM, I FIND IT APPALLING THAT
WE WOULD OVERRIDE DEMOCRATICALLY
PROTECTED -- FOR CONSUMERS
ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF
CLEAR DIRECTION FROM CONGRESS.
I MUST DISSENT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: THANK
YOU.
I THINK FOR THOSE IN THE
AUDIENCE WE SHOULD MAKE THE
APPROPRIATE NOTE THAT I THINK
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE 21ST
CENTURY HAS COME TO THE DIAS
HERE BECAUSE COMMISSIONER
O'RIELLY WAS READING ALL OF THAT
OFF OF HIS iPAD RATHER THAN
THE REST OF US HERE, WHO ARE
STILL DEALING WITH WITH
MR. GUTTENBERG'S IDEAS.
[LAUGHTER]
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: YOU KNOW,
THERE ARE A FEW IRREFUTABLE
TRUTHS ABOUT BROADBAND.
ONE IS, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT
YOU'RE FOR BROADBAND AND THEN
TURN AROUND AND ENDORSE LIMITS
ON WHO CAN OFFER IT.
ANOTHER IS THAT YOU CAN'T SAY I
WANT TO FOLLOW THE EXPLICIT
INSTRUCTIONS OF CONGRESS TO,
QUOTE, REMOVE BARRIERS, THE
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE CONGRESS HAS
TOLD US TO DO, TO REMOVE
BARRIERS TO INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT, BUT ENDORSE BARRIERS
ON INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.
I THINK AS THEY SAY IN NORTH
CAROLINA, THAT DOG DON'T HUNT.
[LAUGHTER]
YOU CAN'T SAY YOU'RE FOR
COMPETITION BUT DENY LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS THE RIGHT TO
OFFER COMPETITIVE CHOICES.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE WHAT
WE'RE VOTING ON HERE TODAY.
THIS ITEM IS RESPONDING TO TWO
SPECIFIC PETITIONS FROM TWO
CITIES, THE RULING IS
ENFORCEABLE ONLY ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR
STATES.
I DO HOPE, HOWEVER, THAT THIS
ATTENTION DOES SHINE SOME LIGHT
ON THE FACT THAT IN IS AN
ONGOING EFFORT TO IMPOSE
RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT ELECTED
LOCAL OFFICIALS CAN DO AT THE
REQUEST OF THEIR PEOPLE, AND
THAT IT CALLS OUT THE ACTIVITIES
OF INCUMBENTS TO BLOCK CONSUMER
CHOICE AND COMPETITION THROUGH
LEGISLATION.
THE BOTTOM LINE OF THESE MATTERS
IS THAT SOME STATES HAVE CREATED
THICKETS OF RED TAPE DESIGNED TO
LIMIT COMPETITION.
WE'RE NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT THE
STATE'S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER A COMMUNITY CAN OFFER
BROADBAND TO ITS CITIZENS.
IN BOTH NORTH CAROLINA AND IN
TENNESSEE, THE STATE HAS GIVEN
THE LOCALITIES THAT AUTHORITY.
BUT THAT GRANT OF AUTHORITY HAS
BEEN UNDERMINED BY STATE-IMPOSED
BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE
REQUIREMENTS.
AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS
CUTTING AWAY THAT RED TAPE
CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESS'
INSTRUCTION TO, QUOTE, ENCOURAGE
THE DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND, END
QUOTE, PROMOTE COMPETITION IN
BROADBAND.
SO WHILE WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF
TALK ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES UP HERE
TODAY, AND CERTAINLY EVERYBODY
HAS THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS
AND IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN
INTERPRETATIONS, WHAT WE TOO
OFTEN LOSE SIGHT OF IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS HERE IN WASHINGTON
IS THAT THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HAVE A VERY HUMAN
FACE.
WHEN LOCAL LEADERS HAVE THEIR
HANDS TIED BY BUREAUCRATIC STATE
RED TAPE, LOCAL BUSINESSES AND
RESIDENTS ARE THE ONES WHO
SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.
LET'S LOOK AT A FEW OF THOSE
FACES.
JEFF WILSON FROM HOLLY SPRINGS,
NORTH CAROLINA, IS WITH US.
JEFF, WHERE ARE YOU?
STAND UP.
JEFF CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THE
HEALTHCARE COMPANY IN HIS CITY
THAT RELOCATED TO ANOTHER AREA
BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE ACCESS TO
BROADBAND AND THE CONSTRAINTS
THAT IT PUT ON THAT COMPANY AND
THEIR ABILITY TO DO BASIC THINGS
LIKE BACK UP.
THEY WERE SIMPLY UNWILLING TO
LOSE BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY WERE
STUCK IN THE DIGITAL SLOW LANE,
AND SO AS JEFF TELLS US, THEY
MOVED THEIR OPERATIONS
ELSEWHERE, TO THE DETRIMENT OF
THE CITIZENS OF HOLLY SPRINGS.
MATT SCHUYLER IS HERE, THERE HE
IS, FROM HIGHLANDS, NORTH
CAROLINA.
MATT CAN TELL YOU ABOUT HOW
LOCAL LEADERS SAW THE INTERNET
AS A WAY TO BRING ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY TO THIS TOWN OF
ABOUT A THOUSAND INHABITANTS.
BUT THE RED TAPE OF THE STATE
LAW STOPPED THEM FROM BEING ABLE
TO DO SO.
THANK YOU, MATT, FOR TELLING US
THAT STORY, PUTTING THAT FACE ON
IT.
RICHARD THOMPSON IS HERE.
RICHARD.
HE CAN TALK ABOUT THE
FRUSTRATION OF LIVING ONLY THREE
QUARTERS OF A MILE FROM
CHATTANOOGA'S GIGABIT NETWORK
BUT STILL BEING IN THE INTERNET
DARK AGES.
MR. THORNTON HAS TO PAY $316 A
MONTH FOR A COLLAGE OF SERVICES
THAT INCLUDE TWO MOBILE HOTSPOTS
THAT REQUIRE CAREFUL MONITORING
OF HIS DATA CONSUMPTION AND
DON'T DELIVER AT THE KIND OF
SPEEDS THAT EPB DELIVERS, PLUS
SATELLITE TV, PLUS PHONE
SERVICE.
YET LESS THAN A MILE AWAY,
GIGABIT SERVICE IS AVAILABLE
WITH TV AND PHONE FOR $133.
AND THE PROVIDER OF THAT SERVICE
WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND THEIR LINES
TO PROVIDE MR. THORNTON WITH THE
SERVICE THAT HE SEEKS.
BUT THEY'RE PROHIBITED FROM
DOING SO BY TENNESSEE'S
BUREAUCRATIC REQUIREMENTS.
EVA VANHOOK IS HERE.
EVA.
EVA IS FROM BRADLEY COUNTY,
TENNESSEE.
SHE CAN TELL YOU, SHE'S TOLD ME,
SHE CAN TELL YOU HOW SHE HAD TO
DRIVE HER SON TO THEIR CHURCH,
OR HER SON CAN DRIVE HIMSELF, TO
WATCH ONLINE MATERIAL THAT IS
ASSIGNED AS A PART OF HIS HIGH
SCHOOL CURRICULUM.
SHE HAS TO GO 12 MILES SO THAT
HER SON CAN SEE THE BIOLOGY
VIDEOS THAT HE NEEDS TO HAVE FOR
THE NEXT DAY'S CLASSES.
BECAUSE STATE RULES KEEP HER
FROM GETTING THE FASTER AND
CHEAPER INTERNET SERVICE THAT
CHATTANOOGA EPB WANTS TO OFFER.
EVA, THANKS FOR JOINING US.
NOW, THE COMMISSION RESPECTS THE
IMPORTANT ROLE OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS IN OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM.
AND WE DON'T TAKE LIGHTLY THE
MATTER OF PREEMPTING STATE LAWS.
BUT IT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLE THAT STATE LAWS
THAT -- THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL
POLICY MAY BE SUBJECT TO
PREEMPTION IN APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE HUMAN FACES OF THOSE WHO ARE
CONDEMNED TO SECOND RATE
BROADBAND ARE A MESSAGE TO ALL
OF US.
AND IN THESE MATTERS, OUR
INSTRUCTIONS FROM CONGRESS ARE
CLEAR.
SO LET US BE CLEAR.
THIS DECISION IS PRO-BROADBAND.
THIS DECISION IS
PRO-COMPETITION.
AND THIS DECISION IS FOR THE
RIGHT OF AMERICANS, THROUGH
THEIR ELECTED LOCAL OFFICIALS,
TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION ABOUT
THEIR BROADBAND FUTURE.
I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR
ALL THE YEOMAN'S WORK AND HARD
WORK THAT YOU PUT IN TO THIS
ISSUE, AND WE WILL NOW GO TO A
VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE ITEM IS CARRIED.
[APPLAUSE]
AND EDITORIAL PRIVILEGES ARE
GRANTED.
>> OBJECTION, MR. CHAIRMAN?
CHEEL I DON'T SUPPORT EDITORIAL
PRIF LINS ON THIS ITEM.
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: WE HAVE
AN OBJECTION TO EDITORIAL
PRIVILEGES.
SO NOTED.
MADAME SECRETARY.
>> THE SECRETARY: MR. CHAIRMAN,
COMMISSIONERS, ITEM TWO ON YOUR
AGENDA WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE
WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU, THE
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU, AND THE OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL.
IT IS ENTITLED "PROTECTING AND
PROMOTING THE OPEN INTERNET."
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: THANK YOU,
MADAME SECRETARY.MS. VEACH, YOU DIDN'T EVEN
CHANGE SEATS.
>> DIDN'T MOVE A MUSCLE.
WE'RE NOW PLEASED TO PRESENT FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION AN ORDER THAT
WOULD SET FORTH CLEAR
SUSTAINABLE ENFORCEABLE RULES TO
PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE OPEN
INTERNET.
AS A PLACE FOR INNOVATIONS AND
FREE EXPRESSION.
THE ORDER -- ON THE VIEWS OF
SOME 4 MILLION AMERICANS WHO
COMMENTED IN THIS PROCEEDING IN
RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF
PROPOSED RULE MAKING THAT YOU
ADOPTED LAST MAY.
BEFORE WE PRESENT THE ITEM, WE
HAVE TWO VERY SPECIAL GUESTS
WITH US TODAY.
CHAD DICKERSON, CEO OF ETSY, AND
VEENA SUD, CREATOR OF THE TV
DRAMA, OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
TODAY.
ALSO COMMISSIONERS.
AS THE CEO OF ETSY, I'M HERE TO
THANK YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES
FOR TAKING DECISIVE ACTION TO
PROTECT THE INTERNET AS A
PLATFORM FOR ENT PRENEWERSHIP
AND INNOVATION.
ETSY IS AN ONLINE MARKETPLACE
WHERE YOU CAN BUY HANDMADE AND
VINTAGE GOODS FROM ARTISTS,
DESIGNERS AND COLLECTORS AROUND
THE WORLD.
WE'VE DEMOCRATIZED ACCESS TO
ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR OVER
1.2 MILLION SELLERS, 88% OF WHOM
ARE WOMEN, WHO COLLECTIVELY SOLD
$1.35 BILLION WORTH OF
MERCHANDISE IN 2013.
MOST ARE SOLE PROPRIETORS WHO
WORK FROM HOME.
THEY LIVE IN ALL 50 STATES, AND
THEY DEPEND ON THEIR ET SEE
INCOME TO PAY THEIR BILLS AND
SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES.
18% SUPPORT THEMSELVES FULL TIME
ON ETSY.
ETSC AND OUR SELLERS RELY ON A
FREE AND OPEN INTERNET.
IT ALLOWED ETSY, THE COMPANY, TO
GROW FROM A TINY STARTUP IN A
BROOKLYN APARTMENT TO A GLOBAL
COMPANY WITH OVER 600 EMPLOYEES.
IT ALLOWS THE MICROBUSINESSES
WHO SELL ON ETSY TO REACH SPIRES
AROUND THE WORLD AND COMPETE
WITH MUCH BIGGER, MORE
ESTABLISHED BRANDS.
BACK IN 1993, IT EVEN ALLOWED
ME, AN ENGLISH MAJOR WITH A DATA
ENTRY JOB AT A LOCAL NEWSPAPER,
TO JUMP-START MY CAREER IN
TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHING MYSELF
HOW TO CODE.
THERE'S HOPE FOR ENGLISH MAJORS.
[LAUGHTER]
WITHOUT STRONG RULES TO PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION ONLINE, THE
INNOVATION ECONOMY WOULD SUFFER.
TAKE ETSY AS AN EXAMPLE.
WE CHARGE ONLY 20 CENTS TO LIST
AN ITEM ON ETSY, AND TAKE ONLY
3.5% OF EVERY TRANSACTION.
WE COULDN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR
PRIORITY ACCESS TO CONSUMERS,
YET WE KNOW DELAYS OF
MILLISECONDS HAVE A DIRECT AND
LONG TERM IMPACT ON REVENUE.
ABSENT THE RULES YOU'RE VOTING
ON TODAY, WE WOULD BE FORCED TO
EITHER RAISE OUR FEES OR LEAVE
OUR SELLERS IN THE SLOW LANE,
HURTING THE MICROBUSINESSES WHO
DEPEND ON OUR PLATFORM MOST OF
ALL.
THE ETSY COMMUNITY KNOWS WHAT'S
AT STAKE.
THAT'S WHY ON SEPTEMBER 10TH,
30,000 OF THEM JOINED MILLIONS
OF OTHERS URGING CONGRESS AND
THE FCC TO PROTECT THE OPEN
INTERNET.
MANY OTHERS MADE HAN CRAFTED
OBJECTS CALLING FOR NET
NEUTRALITY, AND SEVERAL MORE
SENT THANK YOU CARDS FOR ME TO
BRING TO THE FCC TODAY, WHICH I
GAVE TO CHAIRMAN WHEELER A BIT
EARLIER.
I HAVE A HANDWRITTEN NOTE IN MY
HAND FROM NANCY FROM CALIFORNIA,
AND SHE WROTE TO CHAIRMAN
WHEELER, DEAR CHAIRMAN WHEELER,
MY NOTE IS A HEARTFELT AND
PERSONAL THANK YOU TO YOU FOR
PROTECTING THE FREE INTERNET FOR
ALL.
I WORKED IN THE MEDICAL FIELD
FOR 30 YEARS AND LOVED IT, BUT A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, A GIRL
TEXTING ON THE FREEWAY TOOK MY
CAREER AWAY FROM ME.
MY INJURIES FORCED ME TO FIND
INCOME FROM SOMETHING I COULD DO
FROM A CHAIR.
I TURNED TO MY PASSION FOR
CREATIVITY AND VINTAGE ITEMS AND
JOINED ETSY.
MY DREAM IS ALIVE AND VIABLE
BECAUSE OF FREE INTERNET
NEUTRALITY AND ETSY.
THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY
HEART FOR YOUR ERNEST SUPPORT
FOR ME AND COUNTLESS OTHER
LITTLE PEOPLE TRYING TO GLEAN
INCOME FROM THEIR ARTISTRY.
BLESSINGS TO YOU.
NANCY.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN WHEELER.
SO TODAY AAPPLAUD THE FCC FOR
ESTABLISHING CLEAR, BRIGHT LINE
RULES THAT BAN DISCRIMINATION
ONLINE.
OVER THE LAST YEAR, OVER
4 MILLION PEOPLE WEIGHED IN ON
THIS PROCEEDING.
TODAY'S VOTE DEMONSTRATES THAT
THEY'VE BEEN HEARD.
THANK YOU FOR VOTING TO PROTECT
THE INTERNET AS AN ENGINE FOR
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, THE LIKES
OF WHICH WE HAVE NEVER SEEN.
THANK YOU.
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: THANK YOU
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND PLEASE
SAY THANK YOU TO NANCY.
>> GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN,
COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS VEENA SUD, I'M A
MEMBER OF THE WRITERS GUILD OF
AMERICA.
I DEVELOPED THE TV SERIES "THE
KILLING," A SHOW THAT SURVIVED
TWO NEAR DEATHS BECAUSE OF THE
OPEN INTERNET.
"THE KILLING" ORIGINALLY AIRED
ON AMC BUT THE NETWORK CANCELED
US AFTER OUR SECOND SEASON.
NETFLIX OFFERED TO SHARE
FINANCING OF A THIRD SEASON AND
WE WERE RESURRECTED.
WHEN AMC CANCELED US YET AGAIN,
NETFLIX TOOK OVER THE SHOW IN
ITS ENTIRETY AND WE WERE ABLE TO
END THE SERIES AS IT WAS
INTENDED.
ALL BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET WAS
OPENED UP COMPETITION AND
WIDENED THE PLAYING FIELD.
WE TOLD SOME OF OUR WITH BEST
STORIES, OUR TOUGHEST, MOST
HEARTBREAKING ONES, IN THE LAST
TWO SEASONS OF THE SHOW, STORIES
THAT NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ON
THE AIR HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE
OPEN INTERNET.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE DEATH
PENALTY, TEENAGE HOMELESSNESS
AND DRUG ADDICTION AND I'M SO
GRATEFUL WE HAD THAT
OPPORTUNITY.
WHAT THE OPEN INTERNET MEANS FOR
CREATIVITY, INNOVATION AND
DIVERSITY POINTS IS BY NO MEANS
LIMITED TO MY OWN EXPERIENCE.
SERIES LIKE ORANGES IN -- BLACK
AND TRANSPARENT ARE GIVING VOICE
TO WORLDS AND PEOPLE AND
EXPERIENCES NEVER BEFORE SEEN ON
THE SMALL SCREEN.
AND WHILE LITTLE MORE THAN 20%
OF COMEDIES AND DRAMAS ON
TRADITIONAL TELEVISION HAVE A
WOMAN AT THE HELM, ALMOST 40% OF
THE SERIES AIRING ON THESE NEW
ONLINE PLATFORMS THIS SEASON
WILL BE RUN BY WOMEN.
THIS PROGRESS IS THE RESULT OF
NEW COMPETITION LET LOOSE ON AN
INDUSTRY THAT IS HIGHLY
CONSOLIDATED.
IT'S THE RESULT OF PENT-UP
DEMAND BY AN AMERICAN PUBLIC
TIRED OF HEARING THE SAME OLD
SAME OLD.
IT'S THE RESULT INNOVATION ON A
PLATFORM THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE
PERMISSION WHICH HAS EXPANDED
HOW, WHERE AND BY WHO STORIES
CAN BE TOLD BECAUSE OF THE OPEN
INTERNET, WE ARE SEEING THE FREE
MARKET IDEAL WORK AS ADAM SMITH
INTENDED WITH INCREASING
COMPETITION, WITH WHICH REWARDS
BOTH CONSUMERS AND CREATORS.
HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT CONTINUE
WITHOUT STRONG RULES THAT HELP
ENSURE THAT MARKETS WORK
PROPERLY, MEANING IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
THE FEW COMPANIES THAT CONTROL
THE PIPE AND THAT FACE LITTLE
COMPETITION HAVE ALREADY BEGUN
TO EXERCISE THEIR GATE KEEPER
POWER TO LIMIT THE PROMISE OF
THIS NEW PLATFORM.
TODAY WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE
MOMENT WHERE YOU DECIDE THE
FUTURE.
THE RIGHT DECISION, THE ONE THAT
WILL BENEFIT CREATORS,
INNOVATORS, THE ECONOMY AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, IS TO RECLASSIFY
BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE AS A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE.
ONLY RECLASSIFICATION WILL ALLOW
THE COMMISSION TO INSTITUTE THE
RULES THAT WILL BAN BLOCKING
AND PAY PRIORITIZATION AND ALL
THE WAYS IN WHICH THE COMPANIES
THAT CONTROL DISTRIBUTION CAN
TIP THE SCALES IN THEIR FAVOR.
WHAT YOU DO TODAY CAN SECURE THE
FUTURE OF THE OPEN INTERNET AND
MAKE SURE ALL OUR VOICES ARE
HEARD, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MS. SUD.
NOW I'D LIKE TO ASK OUR
AUDIOVISUAL TEAM TO PLAY THE
VIDEO.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN WHEELER
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION,
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS
YOU AT WHAT IS A CRITICAL MOMENT
FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET.
MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THE
ACTION THAT YOU TAKE TODAY WILL
PRESERVE THE -- MER LITIONLESS
INNOVATION THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN AT
THE HEART OF THE INTERNET.
LET ME EXPLAIN.
-- 25 YEARS AGO, THE
INTERNET -- 45 YEARS AGO, SO 25
YEARS AGO AS AN INTERNET USER, I
COULD SIT DOWN, WRITE A PROGRAM,
WRITE A WEB BROWSER, GIVE COPIES
TO PEOPLE AND LET THEM RUN ON
COMPUTERS WHICH WERE CONNECTED
TO THE INTERNET.
ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY WAS
PLUGGED INTO THE INTERNET.
I DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK ANYBODY'S
PERMISSION.
FROM THIS, THE WORLDWIDE WEB
SPREAD TO REACH ALL THE CORNERS
OF THE GLOBAL INTERCONNECTED
WORLD, ENABLING HUNDREDS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND ENHANCE FREE SPEECH
AND DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD.
I DIDN'T HAVE TO GET PERMISSION
FROM ANYBODY TO INTRODUCE -- I
DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY ISP SPECIAL
FEES, I DIDN'T HAVE TO CONVINCE
ANYBODY THAT THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY
SHOULD BE LET THROUGH -- I
DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY THAT THEY
WOULD -- COMPETING WITH ONE OR
THE OTHER THAT THEY HAD.
SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK
PERMISSION FROM EVERYBODY AND
THE WEB ITSELF ON TOP OF THE
INTERNET IS ANOTHER PLATFORM --
ASK ME TO MAKE A NEW WEBSITE.
SO THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT,
IT'S A WONDERFUL SYSTEM.
THE OPENNESS OF THE INTERNET
THAT CREATED THAT OPPORTUNITY
FOR ME 25 YEARS AGO WILL ENSURE
ALSO THAT THE NEXT INNOVATOR TO
COME ON WITH A GREAT NEW APP,
GREAT NEW SERVICE, IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE WEB ITSELF, WILL HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TRY THEIR IDEAS
IN THE FREE MARKET JUST AS I
DID.
SO TODAY'S FCC ACTION IS ABOUT
CONSUMER RIGHTS, FREE SPEECH,
IT'S ABOUT DEMOCRACY BECAUSE --
THERE'S ALSO SOME VERY
IMPORTANT -- BUSINESS, THE
OPENNESS OF INTERNET, THE FACT
THAT INNET IS MUTUAL --
CONSIDERING -- [INAUDIBLE]
DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION.
SO I APPLAUD THE CHAIRMAN'S
DECISION TO RELY ON THE TIME
TESTED -- AUTHORITY -- THIS WILL
ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO --
HOPEFULLY THE KIND OF SIMPLE
CLEAR RULES THAT HAS BEEN THE
BASIS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON
WHICH OUR SOCIETY DEPENDS.
-- THE LEGAL SYSTEM, STIFLING
SPEECH ON THE INTERNET,
PROTECTING INTERNET OPENNESS AND
FREE SPEECH, RATHER THAN SETTING
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW FREE SPEECH IN
AN OPEN SOCIETY SETS BASIC
RULES, TRANSPARENT PRINCIPLES.
MANY COUNTRIES, NOW, IN FACT,
ARE FACING THE QUESTION WHAT TO
DO ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY, AND I'M
PROUD THAT THE FCC IS LEADING
THE WAY IN SHOWING HOW TO
CONTINUE -- INNOVATION AND -- TO
THE INTERNET.
WE ARE A SOCIETY OF LAWS AND WE
KNOW THE FREE MARKET DEPENDS
ON -- PROPERTY IS PROTECTED,
FRAUD IS PUNISHED, FOR EXAMPLE.
WE'RE USED TO THOSE THINGS.
IN A WORLD IN WHICH THE FLOW OF
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET IS
IN FACT OUR ECONOMIC AND OUR
SOCIAL LIFE'S BLOOD, WE HAVE TO
ADD NET NEUTRALITY TO A LIST OF
BASIC MARKET CONDITIONS THAT WE
PRESENT.
THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN,
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
FOR THE IMPORTANT STEP YOU ARE
TAKING TODAY AND THE OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE THIS CONTRIBUTION.
>> THE REMARKS WE'VE HEARD FROM
OUR GUESTS REFLECT THE
WIDESPREAD CONSENSUS ON THE
RECORD OF THIS PROCEEDING OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING AND
PROMOTING AN OPEN INTERNET.
AN ITEM OF THIS COMPLEXITY AND
SCOPE REQUIRES QUITE A TEAM.
ECONOMISTS, ENGINEERS,
TECHNOLOGISTS AND ATTORNEYS
ACROSS THE COMMISSION ALL PLAYED
ROLES IN PREPARING THE ITEM
THAT'S BEFORE YOU.
ON BEHALF OF THE WIRELINE
COMPETITION BUREAU, I'D LIKE TO
THANK ESPECIALLY OUR COLLEAGUES
IN THE OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL, WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, CONSUMER AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU AND
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, AS WELL AS
OUR CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST, SCOTT
JORDAN.
WITH ME AT THE TABLE ARE JOHN
AND STEPHANIE WEINER OF THE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, ROGER
SHERMAN AND JIM SCHLICHTING OF
THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU, AND CLAUDE AIKEN, MATT
DELL NEAR OWE AND -- OF THE
WIRELINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU.
MELISSA WILL PRESENT THE ITEM.
>> GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN
AND COMMISSIONERS.
AT THE OUTSET, THE ORDER BEFORE
YOU SETS FORTH THREE BRIGHT LINE
RULES TO BAN CONDUCT THAT WE
KNOW THREATENS THE OPEN
INTERNET.
FIRST, BROADBAND PROVIDERS MAY
NOT BLOCKAGES TO LEGAL CONTENT,
APPLICATION, SERVICES, OR
NON-HARMFUL DEVICES.
SECOND, THEY MAY NOT IMPAIR OR
DEGRADE LAWFUL INTERNET TRAFFIC
ON THE BASIS OF CONTENT,
APPLICATION, SERVICES, OR ANY
CLASSES THEREOF.
THIRD, THEY MAY NOT FAVOR SOME
INTERNET TRAFFIC OVER OTHER
INTERNET TRAFFIC IN EXCHANGE FOR
CONSIDERATION OF ANY KIND.
IN OTHER WORDS, NO FAST LANES.
AS IN THE COMMISSION'S 2010 OPEN
INTERNET ORDER, TODAY'S ORDER
ALSO ADOPTS A STANDARD FOR
JUDGING CONCERNS WITH ANY FUTURE
PRACTICES ON A CASE-BY-CASE
BASIS.
THAT STANDARD WILL PROHIBIT
BROADBAND PROVIDERS FROM
UNREASONABLY INTERFERING WITH OR
UNREASONABLY DISADVANTAGING THE
ABILITY OF CONSUMERS AND EDGE
PROVIDERS TO REACH ONE ANOTHER.
ALL OF THESE RULES, OTHER THAN
THE BAN ON PAID PRIORITIZATION,
ARE SUBJECT TO A COMMON SENSE
EXCEPTION FOR REASONABLE NETWORK
MANAGEMENT.
BUT THE ORDER MAKES CLEAR THAT
THE COMMISSION WILL NOT TOLERATE
ABUSE OF THIS EXCEPTION.
THE ORDER ALSO ENHANCES THE
TRANSPARENCY RULE ADOPTED IN
2010, WHICH IS STILL IN EFFECT.
IT PROVIDES SMALLER BROADBAND
PROVIDERS WITH A TEMPORARY
EXEMPTION FROM IT THESE
ENHANCEMENTS, AND SETS IN MOTION
A PROCESS TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO
MAKE THAT OR ANOTHER EXEMPTION
PERMANENT.
THE ORDER ALSO NOTES THAT SOME
DATA SERVICES, LIKE
FACILITIES-BASED VOIP, ARE NOT
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICES AND, THUS, NOT SUBJECT
TO THE CONDUCT RULES.
THE ORDER, HOWEVER, DOES ENSURE
THAT THESE SERVICES DO NOT
UNDERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE OPEN INTERNET RULE.
ALSO, THE ORDER ALLOWS THE
COMMISSION TO ADDRESS ANY
PROBLEMS THAT ARISE IN THE
EXCHANGE OF TRAFFIC BETWEEN
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
PROVIDERS AND OTHER NETWORKS AND
SERVICES.
THE ORDER RECOGNIZES THAT WHEN
INTERCONNECTION BREAKS DOWN,
ULTIMATELY IT IS CONSUMERS WHO
BEAR THE H
HARM.
FIRST, IT CLASSIFIES BROADBAND
INTERNET ACCESS, BOTH FIXED AND
MOBILE, AS A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE.
THE ORDER RECOGNIZES THAT IN
OFFERING THIS SERVICE, THE
BROADBAND PROVIDER MAKES A
PROMISE TO THE END USER TO
TRANSMIT TRAFFIC TO AND FROM ALL
LAW FUFL INTERNET END POINTS AND
THE END USER.
THIS IS NO LESS TRUE IN MOBILE
THAN IT IS IN FIXED.
ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER FINDS
THAT MOBILE BROADBAND INTERNET
ACCESS SERVICE IS A COMMERCIAL
MOBILE SERVICE UNDER SECTION
332 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT,
AND ALL OF THE OPEN INTERNET
PROTECTIONS THAT APPLY TO FIXED
BROADBAND ALSO APPLY TO MOBILE
BROADBAND.
AND WITH RESPECT TO
INTERCONNECTION, THE ORDER
EXPLAINS THAT THIS PROMISE
ENCOMPASSES THE DUTY TO MAKE THE
NECESSARY TRAFFIC EXCHANGE
ARRANGEMENTS THAT ALLOW
CONSUMERS TO USE THE INTERNET AS
THEY WISH.
THESE FINDINGS CONCERNING
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE PROVIDE THE BEST LEGAL
CERTAINTY FOR RULES GUARANTEEING
AN OPEN INTERNET AND REFLECT THE
REALITY OF HOW BROADBAND
PROVIDERS OFFER THEIR SERVICES
TO THE PUBLIC TODAY.
TO ENSURE THAT THE SERVICE
CLASSIFICATION RESULTS IN
CONTINUED LIGHT-TOUCH FRAMEWORK
FOR BROADBAND, THE ORDER
EXERCISES THE FORBEARANCE
AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE
COMMISSION BY CONGRESS,
FORBEARING FROM SOME 27
PROVISIONS OF TITLE II AND OVER
700 REGULATIONS ADOPTED UNDER
IT.
THE ORDER RETAINS CORE AUTHORITY
OH TO PREVENT UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE PRACTICES, PROTECT
CONSUMERS, AND SUPPORT UNIVERSAL
SERVICE.
THE ORDER MAKES CLEAR THAT
BROADBAND PROVIDERS WILL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO UTILITY STYLE
REGULATION.
THIS MEANS NO UNBUNDLING,
TARIFF, OR OTHER FORMS OF RATE
REGULATION.
AND THE ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE
BROADBAND PROVIDERS TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNIVERSAL
SERVICE FUND, NOR DOES IT
IMPOSE, SUGGEST OR AUTHORIZE ANY
NEW TAXES OR FEES.
IN SHORT, THE ORDER BEFORE YOU
RESPONDS TO THE UNPRECEDENTED
RECORD IN THIS PROCEEDING BY
ADOPTING STRONG OPEN INTERNET
PROTECTIONS AND RESTING THEM ON
SOLID LEGAL GROUND.
THE BUREAU RECOMMENDS ADOPTION
OF THIS ITEM AND REQUESTS
EDITORIAL PRIVILEGES.
THANK YOU.
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: THANK ALL
OF YOU FOR YOUR SUBSTANTIAL
EFFORTS ON THIS.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
>> COMMISSIONER CLYBURN: THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FOLLOWING YEARS OF VIGOROUS
DEBATE, THE UNITED STATES
ADOPTED THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN
1791.
THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZE THAT BASIC
FREEDOMS AS ENSHRINED IN THE
FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION WERE FUNDAMENTAL TO
A FREE AND OPEN DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY.
JAMES MADISON GAVE LIFE TO THE
IT FIRST AMENDMENT IN A SCANT 45
WORDS, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHICH ARE
FUNDAMENTAL TO THE SPIRIT OF
THIS GREAT NATION.
ALMOST TWO CENTURIES LATER,
JUSTICE WILLIAM BRENNAN WOULD
WRITE THE HISTORIC 1964 "NEW
YORK TIMES" VERSUS SULLIVAN
DECISION THAT QUOTE DEBATE ON
PUBLIC ISSUES SHOULD BE
UNINHIBITED, ROBUST AND WIDE
OPEN.
I BELIEVE PRESIDENT MADISON AND
JUSTICE BRENNAN WOULD BE
PARTICULARLY PROUD OF THE
RIGOROUS, ROBUST AND UNFETTERED
DEBATE THAT HAS LED US TO THIS
HISTORIC MOMENT, AND WHAT A
MOMENT IT IS.
I BELIEVE THE FRAMERS WOULD BE
PLEASED TO SEE THESE PRINCIPLES
EMBODIED ON A PLATFORM THAT HAS
BECOME SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF
OUR LIVES.
I ALSO BELIEVE THEY NEVER
ENVISIONED A GOVERNMENT THAT
WOULD INCLUDE THE INPUT AND
LEADERSHIP OF WOMEN, PEOPLE OF
COLOR, AND IMMIGRANTS, OR THAT
THERE WOULD BE AN OPEN PROCESS
WHERE NEARLY 4 MILLION CITIZENS
HAVE HAD A DIRECT CONVERSATION
WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT.
THEY WOULD BE EXTREMELY AMAZED,
I'D VENTURE TO SAY, BECAUSE WE
ARE EXTREMELY AMAZED.
SO HERE WE ARE 224 YEARS LATER
AT A PIVOTAL FORK IN THE ROAD.
POISED TO PRESERVE THOSE VERY
SAME VIRTUES OF A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY, FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF
RELIGION, A FREE PRESS, FREEDOM
OF ASSEMBLY AND A FUNCTIONING
FREE MARKET.
AS WE LOOK AROUND THE WORLD, WE
SEE FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS BLOCKING
ACCESS TO WEBSITES, INCLUDING
SOCIAL MEDIA.
IN SUM, CURTAILING FREE SPEECH.
THERE ARE COUNTRIES WHERE IT IS
ROUTINE FOR GOVERNMENT, NOT THE
CONSUMER, TO DETERMINE WHO HAS
ACCESS AND WHAT KIND OF CONTENT
CAN BE ACCESSED BY ITS CITIZENS.
I AM PROUD TO BE ABLE TO SAY
THAT WE ARE NOT AMONG THEM.
ABSENT THE RULES WE ADOPT TODAY,
HOWEVER, ANY INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDER HAS THE LIBERTY TO DO
JUST THAT.
THEY WOULD BE FREE TO BLOCK,
THROTTLE, FAVOR OR DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST TRAFFIC OR EXTRACT HOLES
FROM IT ANY USER FOR ANY REASON,
OR FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
THIS IS MORE THAN A THEORETICAL
EXERCISE.
PROVIDERS HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES HAVE, IN FACT, BLOCKED
APPLICATIONS ON MOBILE DEVICES
WHICH NOT ONLY HAMPERS FREE
EXPRESSION, IT ALSO RESTRICTS --
AND INNOVATION BY ALLOWING
COMPANIES, NOT THE CONSUMER, TO
PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS.
AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT
MY FIRST OPEN INTERNET RODEO.
WHILE I DID VOTE TO APPROVE THE
2010 RULES, IT WAS NO SECRET
THAT I PREFERRED A DIFFERENT
PATH THAN THE ONE THE COMMISSION
ULTIMATELY ADOPTED,
SPECIFICALLY, TITLE II WITH
FORBEARANCE, MOBIL CLARITY, A
BAN ON PAY PRIORITIZATION, AND
PREVENTING THE SPECIALIZED
SERVICES EXEMPTION FROM BECOMING
A LOOPHOLE.
SO I AM SINCERELY GRATEFUL TO
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH MY
OFFICE TO BETTER ENSURE THAT
THIS ORDER STRIKES THE RIGHT
BALANCE AND IS POSITIONED TO
PROVIDE US WITH STRONG LEGALLY
SUSTAINABLE RULES.
THIS IS OUR THIRD BITE AT THE
APPLE, AND WE MUST GET IT RIGHT.
TODAY WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER A
FEW SIMPLE QUESTIONS.
WHO DETERMINES HOW YOU USE THE
INTERNET?
WHO DECIDES WHAT CONTENT YOU CAN
VIEW AND WHEN?
SHOULD THERE BE A SINGLE
INTERNET OR FAST LANE AND SLOW
LANES?
SHOULD INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS BE LEFT FREE TO SLOW
DOWN OR THROTTLE CERTAIN
APPLICATIONS OR CONTENT AS THEY
SEE FIT?
SHOULD YOUR ACCESS TO THE
INTERNET ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICE
HAVE THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS
YOUR FIXED DEVICE AT HOME?
THESE QUESTIONS, FOR ME, GET TO
THE ESSENCE OF THE OPEN INTERNET
DEBATE.
HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO ENSURE
THAT CONSUMERS HAVE THE TOOLS
THEY NEED TO DECIDE, BASED ON
THEIR OWN USER EXPERIENCE, THE
CONSUMER, NOT ME, NOT THE
GOVERNMENT, NOT THE INDUSTRY,
BUT YOU, THE CONSUMER.
KEEPING IN TOUCH WITH YOUR LOVED
ONE OVERSEAS, INTERACTING WITH
YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER, EVEN
IF YOU ARE MILES AWAY FROM THE
CLOSEST MEDICAL FACILITY, AND
ENROLLING ONLINE FOR CLASSES TO
IMPROVE YOUR EDUCATIONAL,
PROFESSIONAL OR ENTREPRENEURIAL
POTENTIAL, WITHOUT WORRYING
WHETHER THE UNIVERSITY CAN PAY
FOR A FAST LANE SO THAT THAT
LECTURE CAN BE WATCHED, NOT
BUFFERING FOR HOURS WHERE THE
QUALITY HAS BEEN DEGRADED OR
THRO IT TELLED, NOT THAT.
NOT WONDERING IF BUSINESSES
AFFILIATED WITH YOUR INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDER IS GETTING
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OVER THAT
START-UP YOU WORKED SO HARD TO
ESTABLISH.
WE ARE HERE SO THAT TEACHERS
DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A SECOND
THOUGHT ABOUT ASSIGNING HOMEWORK
THAT HAS TO BE RESEARCHED
ONLINE, BECAUSE THEY ARE SURE
THAT THEIR PUPILS ARE FREE TO
ACCESS ANY LAWFUL WEBSITE, AND
SUCH WEBSITES WON'T LOAD AT
DIAL-UP SPEED.
AND WE ARE ANSWERING THE CALLS
OF MORE THAN 4 MILLION
COMMENTERS WHO RAISED THEIR
VOICES AND MADE A DIFFERENCE
THROUGH CIVIC, YET SOMETIMES NOT
ALWAYS SO CIVIL, DISCOURSE.
WE ARE HERE TO ENSURE THAT EVERY
AMERICAN HAS THE ABILITY TO
COMMUNICATE BY THEIR PREFERRED
MEANS, OVER THEIR CHOSEN
PLATFORMS, BECAUSE AS ONE OF OUR
GREATEST CIVIL RIGHTS PIONEERS,
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LEWIS OF
GEORGIA, SAID SO ELOQUENTLY, IF
WE HAVE THE INTERNET DURING THE
MOVEMENT, WE COULD HAVE DONE
MORE, MUCH MORE, TO BRING PEOPLE
TOGETHER FROM ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY, TO ORGANIZE AND WORK
TOGETHER, TO BUILD THE BELOVED
COMMUNITY.
THAT IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT
FOR US TO PROTECT THE INTERNET.
EVERY VOICE MATTERS, HE SAYS.
WE CANNOT LET THE INTERESTS OF
PROFIT SILENCE THE VOICES OF
THOSE PURSUING DIGNITY.
UNQUOTE.
WE ARE HERE TO ENSURE THAT THERE
IS ONLY ONE INTERNET, WHERE
APPLICATION, NEW PRODUCTS, IDEAS
AND POINTS OF VIEW HAVE AN EQUAL
CHANCE OF BEING SEEN AND HEARD.
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE WANT TO
ENABLE THOSE WITH DEEP POCKETS
AS WELL AS THOSE WITH EMPTY
POCKETS THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES
TO SUCCEED.
THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS OF THIS
ITEM THAT I AM PARTICULARLY
PLEASED TO SUPPORT, AND WHILE
TIME AND STAMINA PROHIBIT ME
FROM NAMING THEM ALL, I DO WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW.
USERS OF MOBILE DEVICES SHOULD
NOT BE RELEGATED TO A SECOND
CLASS INTERNET.
WE KNOW MANY LOW INCOME
AMERICANS RELY HEAVILY ON THEIR
MOBILE DEVICE, AND SOME RELY
HEAVILY ON THAT MOBILE PHONE AS
THEIR ONLY ACCESS TO THE
INTERNET.
THEY NEED, THEY DESERVE, A
ROBUST EXPERIENCE ON PAR WITH
THEIR WIRED PEERS.
SO AGAIN, I THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR ENSURING
EQUALITY AND ERASING THE MOBILE
VERSUS FIXED DISTINCTION.
THE ITEM CONTAINS STRONG, CLEAR
RULES TO ENSURE THAT ALL
CONTENT, ALL APPLICATIONS, AND
ALL BITS ARE TREATED EQUALLY.
THESE ARE ALL ESSENTIAL TO THE
FREE MARKET AND THIS IS PRO
COMPETITION.
WE MUST ALSO ENSURE THAT
COMPANIES ARE NOT ABLE TO TAKE
ACTIONS THAT CIRCUMVENT OR
UNDERMINE THE OPEN INTERNET
RULES, THROUGH EXEMPTIONS AT THE
DEFINITION OR AT A POINT OF
INTERCONNECTION, AND DESPITE THE
FLURRY OF PRESS REPORTS EARLIER
THIS WEEK, VERY INTERESTING FOR
ME, I WOULD NEVER ADVOCATE FOR
ANY POLICY THAT UNDERMINES
OVERSIGHT OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY
OPEN INTERNET PROTECTIONS,
INCLUDING INTERCONNECTION.
I AM PLEASED THAT THIS ORDER
COMMITS TO MONITOR INTERNET
TRAFFIC EXCHANGE ARRANGEMENTS
AND ENABLES THE COMMISSION TO
INTERVENE IF APPROPRIATE.
I HAVE ALSO BEEN VOCAL ABOUT MY
CALL TO MODERNIZE THE LIFE LINE
PROGRAM, WHICH HAS BEEN STUCK IN
AN EMPTY HAMMER PARACHUTE PANTS
TIME WARP SINCE 1985.
[LAUGHTER]
THIS ORDER ENABLES THE FCC TO
SUPPORT BROADBAND AS A SEPARATE
SERVICE, WHICH WOULD TRULY HELP
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES BREAK OUT
OF THE DIGITAL DARKNESS.
I HOPE M.C. HAMMER IS NOT
WATCHING.
IN THE SEEMINGLY ENDLESS
MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS, MY
OFFICE HAS HEARD CONCERNS FROM
MANY SIDES.
TO SOME, THE ITEM DOES NOT GO
FAR ENOUGH.
OTHERS WANT TO BAN ON ACCESS
FEES AND THERE ARE THOSE WHO
ADVOCATE A BAN FOR ZERO RATING
AND OTHERS WHO FEEL THAT IT GOES
TO FAR RATHER THAN ON THE SCOPE
OF FORBEARANCE OR THE FOCUS ON
INTERCONNECTION.
WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE
CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE TO STRIKE AN
APPROPRIATE BALANCE AND, YES, IT
IS TRUE THAT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
WERE MADE AT MY OFFICE'S
REQUEST.
INCLUDING THE ELIMINATION OF THE
SENDER SIDE CLASSIFICATION, BUT
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THESE
EDITS HAVE STRENGTHENED THIS
ITEM.
AND REPORTS THAT THIS WEEK IS
OUR LEGAL AUTHORITY OVER
INTERCONNECTION ARE COMPLETELY

INACCURATE.
BUT IT SHOULD COME AS NO
SURPRISE THAT WITH ANY ITEM IN
EXCESS OF 300 PAGES, THAT THERE
MAY BE A FEW ISSUES THAT I WOULD
HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
FIRST, I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO
READOPT THE UNREASONABLE
DISCRIMINATION RULE AND
REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT
RULES FROM 2010.
SECOND, I THINK WE SHOULD TREAD
LIGHTLY WHEN IT COMES TO
PREEMPTING THE STATE'S ABILITY
TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUNDS, NOT
DOING SO COULD PUT A STRAIN ON
THE TREMENDOUS FEDERAL STATE
PARTNERSHIP I'VE WORKED SO HARD
TO CREATE, AND THE STATE
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND, BY THE
WAY, ARE COMPLETELY DISTINCT
FROM ANY FEDERAL PROGRAM.
FINALLY, I HAVE BEEN STRUCK BY
HOW MUCH RHETORIC IN THIS
PROCEEDING IS COMPLETELY
DIVORCED FROM REALITY.
WHILE AS A RULE, I GENERALLY
REFRAIN FROM RESPONDING IN THESE
CASES, I MUST ADDRESS CONCERNS
ABOUT RATE REGULATION.
MANY OF YOU KNOW THAT REFORMING
THE INMATE CALLING SERVICES
REGIME HAS BEEN A PRIORITY FOR
ME.
DESPITE CLEAR LEGAL AUTHORITY,
THE FCC DRAGGED ITS FEET FOR
OVER A DECADE WHILE FAMILIES,
FRIENDS, LAWYERS AND CLERGY PAID
EGREGIOUSLY HIGH AND PATENTLY
UNLAWFUL FEES TO MAKE A SIMPLE
PHONE CALL TO AND FROM INMATE
FACILITIES.
I BRING THIS UP TODAY BECAUSE AN
INMATE CALLING FOR -- REPRESENTS
A PRIME EXAMPLE OF HOW THE FCC
RESISTED RATE REGULATION FOR
YEARS EVEN WHEN CONSUMERS WERE
SUBJECTED TO BLATANTLY
UNREASONABLE CHARGES BY
PROVIDERS WITH A CLEAR MONOPOLY
WITH SEVERE COSTS TO SOCIETY
WERE EVIDENT AND WHERE THERE WAS
A CLEAR CASE OF MARKET FAILURE.
SO FOR THOSE IN A PANIC ABOUT
RATE REGULATION, THERE ARE
MILLIONS WHO CAN TESTIFY TO HOW
HIGH THE BAR IS WHEN IT COMES TO
THE FCC INTERVENING -- WHEN IT
COMES TO RATES AND CHARGES.
AND I REPEAT THIS CHALLENGE TO
ANYONE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT.
HIGHLIGHT EXAMPLES WHERE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION HAS RULED THAT A RATE
IS UNREASONABLE IN A CONTEXT
OTHER THAN INMATE CALLING OR A
TARIFF INVESTIGATION OVER THE
LAST DECADE.
TO DATE, NO ONE HAS COME FORTH
WITH ANY EXAMPLES, AND THAT IN
AND OF ITSELF IS TELLING.
AND LEST WE FORGET THAT OVER 700
SMALL BROADBAND PROVIDERS IN
RURAL AMERICA OFFER BROADBAND
INTERNET ACCESS PURSUANT TO THE
FULL PANOPLY OF TITLE II
REGULATIONS.
THEY CONTRIBUTE TO UNIVERSAL
SERVICE AND AMAZINGLY THE SKY
HAS NOT FALLEN.
THINGS ARE OKAY.
WE HAVE NOT REGULATED THEIR
RATES AND I AM UNAWARE OF ANY
STREAM OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS.
EVEN SO, THE ITEM DOES ASSERT
PRIMARY JURISDICTION TO REDUCE
SUCH CONCERNS.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN, TODAY I SUPPORT
THIS ITEM BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT
PROVIDES THE STRONG PROTECTIONS
WE NEED AND BALANCES THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY STAKEHOLDERS,
BOTH LARGE AND SMALL.
THE ORDER WE ARE PROPOSED TO --
POISED TO ENDORSE IS NOT A
PRODUCT, HOWEVER, OF SOME
ARTIFICIAL LIFE FORCE.
A DEDICATED TEAM OF WIRELINE
COMPETITION AND WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAUS AND
THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
WORKED EXTREMELY HARD ON THIS
ITEM.
THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO
THANK, BUT I WOULD BE REMISS IF
I DID NOT MENTION JONATHAN --
STEPHANIE WEE NEAR, MATT
DELNERO, CLAUDE AIKEN, MARCUS
MAYOR, ROGER SHERMAN, JIM
SCHLICHTING, JOE -- I SAID YOUR
NAME WRONG, BUT JOEL, THANK YOU,
AND MICHAEL JANUARY 16, BUT I'M
ALSO -- I ALSO MUST THANK TWO
PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE ESPECIALLY,
LOUIS PEREZ FOR ALWAYS BEING
THAT EAGLE EYE ATTORNEY, AND
REBECCA GOODHART, WHO WILL WORK
DAYS ON END TO SEE THAT AN ITEM
IS RIGHT.
I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
BUT LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I WOULD
LIKE TO THANK YOU, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
MORE THAN 4 MILLION OF YOU
WEIGHED IN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR AMAZING ROLE
IN FRAMING THIS HISTORIC ORDERED
TO BECAUSE OF YOUR EFFORTS, WE
ARE BETTER ABLE TO ALLOW
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TO TELL
THEIR STORIES, TO REACH THEIR

POTENTIAL, AND TO REALIZE THE
AMERICAN IDEAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: THANK
YOU, COMMISSIONER.
[APPLAUSE]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS, RECOGNIZING THAT AS
MR. LEWIS SAID, EVERY VOICE
MATTERS.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.
>> COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL:
SO THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE NOISE
ON THE WAY TO THIS DECISION
TODAY.
SO I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING
RADICAL.
I'M GOING TO BE BRIEF.
OUR INTERNET ECONOMY IS THE ENVY
OF THE WORLD.
WE INVENTED IT.
THE APPLICATION'S ECONOMY BEGAN
RIGHT HERE ON OUR SHORES.
THE BROADBAND BELOW US AND THE
AIRWAVES ALL AROUND US DELIVER
ITS COLLECTIVE MIGHT INTO OUR
HOMES AND BUSINESSES ALL ACROSS
THE COUNTRY.
WHAT PRODUCED THIS DYNAMIC
ENGINE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND
EXPERIMENTATION IS A FOUNDATION
OF OPENNESS.
AND SUSTAINING WHAT HAS MADE US
INNOVATIVE, FIERCE AND CREATIVE
SHOULD NOT BE A CHOICE.
IT SHOULD BE AN OBLIGATION.
WE ALSO HAVE A DUTY, A DUTY TO
PROTECT WHAT HAS MADE THE
INTERNET THE MOST DYNAMIC
PLATFORM FOR FREE SPEECH EVER
INVENTED.
IT IS OUR PRINTING PRESS.
IT IS OUR TOWN SQUARE.
IT IS OUR INDIVIDUAL SOAP BOX
AND OUR SHARED PLATFORM FOR
OPPORTUNITY.
THAT IS WHY OPEN INTERNET
POLICIES MATTER.
THAT IS WHY I SUPPORT NETWORK
NEUTRALITY.
WE CANNOT HAVE A TWO-TIERED
INTERNET WITH FAST LANES THAT
SPEED THE TRAFFIC OF THE
PRIVILEGED AND LEAVE THE REST OF
US LAGGING BEHIND.
WE CANNOT HAVE GATE KEEPERS WHO
TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT
DO AND WHERE WE CAN AND CANNOT
GO ONLINE.
AND WE DO NOT NEED BLOCKING,
THROTTLING OR PAID
PRIORITIZATION SCHEMES THAT
UNDERMINE THE INTERNET AS WE
KNOW IT.
FOR THESE REASONS, I SUPPORT
CHAIRMAN WHEELER'S EFFORTS AND
RULES TODAY.
THEY USE OUR EXISTING STATUTORY
TOOLS, INCLUDING TITLE II
AUTHORITY, TO PUT BACK IN PLACE
BASIC OPEN INTERNET POLICIES
THAT WE ALL RELY ON, BUT LAST
YEAR OUR COURTS TOOK AWAY.
THE RESULT HONORS THE CREATIVE
COLLABORATIVE AND OPEN INTERNET
ENVISIONED BY THOSE WHO WERE
THERE AT THE START, INCLUDING
THE LEDGE DEAR SIR TIM
BURNERSLEA, THE CREATOR OF THE
WORLDWIDE WEB, WHOM WE HAVE HAD
THE PRIVILEGE TO HEAR FROM
TODAY.
THIS IS A BIG DEAL.
WHAT IS ALSO A BIG DEAL IS
4 MILLION VOICES.
4 MILLION AMERICANS WROTE THIS
AGENCY TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR
IDEAS, THOUGHTS, AND DEEPLY HELD
OPINIONS ABOUT INTERNET
OPENNESS.
THEY LIT UP OUR PHONE LINES,
CLOGGED OUR EMAIL INBOXES AND
JAMMED OUR ONLINE COMMENT
SYSTEM.
THAT MIGHT BE MESSY, BUT
WHATEVER OUR DISAGREEMENTS ARE
ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY, I HOPE WE
CAN AGREE THAT THAT'S DEMOCRACY
IN ACTION, AND SOMETHING WE CAN
ALL SUPPORT.
[APPLAUSE]
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TRUNGEANT PRESENTATION.
WHAT YOU EDITED OUT WAS YOUR
LEADERSHIP THROUGHOUT THIS
PROCESS.
YOUR CHAMPIONING OF OPEN VOICES.
AND WE'LL HEAR A LOT OF WORDS UP
HERE TODAY, BUT THE MOST
IMPORTANT WORDS IS ONE SIMPLE
SHORT WORD, "I."
THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER PAI.
>> COMMISSIONER PAI: THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AMERICANS LOVE THE FREE AND OPEN
INTERNET.
WE'VE RELISHED OUR FREEDOM TO
SPEAK, TO POST, TO RALLY, TO
LEARN, TO LISTEN, TO WATCH, AND
TO CONNECT ONLINE.
THE INTERNET HAS BECOME A
POWERFUL FORCE FOR FREEDOM, HERE
AND AROUND THE WORLD.
SO IT IS SAD TO WITNESS THIS
MORNING THE FCC'S UNPRECEDENTED
ATTEMPTS TO REPLACE THAT FREEDOM
WITH GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY.
FOR 20 YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN A
BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS IN FAVOR OF
A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET.
A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND
REPUBLICAN CONGRESS ENSHRINED IN
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1996.
THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE INTERNET
SHOULD BE A VIBRANT AND
COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET, QUOTE,
UNFETTERED BY FEDERAL AND STATE
REGULATION.
AND DATING BACK TO THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION, EVERY FCC
CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRAT, HAS LET THE INTERNET
GROW FREE FROM UTILITY-STYLE
REGULATION.
THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES.
BUT TODAY, THE FCC ABANDONS
THOSE POLICIES.
IT RECLASSIFIES BROADBAND
INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE AS A
TITLE II TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE.
IT SEES UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE INTERNET CONDUCT TO
DIRECT WHERE ISPs MAKE THEIR
INVESTMENTS, AND TO DETERMINE
WHAT SERVICE PLANS WILL BE
AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC.
THIS IS NOT ONLY A RAD DAL
DEPARTURE FROM THE BIPARTISAN
POLICIES THAT HAVE SERVED US SO
WELL OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES.
IT IS ALSO AN ABOUT FACE FROM
THE PROPOSALS THE FCC ITSELF
MADE JUST LAST MAY.
SO WHY IS THE FCC TURNING ITS
BACK ON INTERNET FREEDOM?
IS IT BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE
EVIDENCE THAT THE INTERNET IS
BROKEN?
NO.
WE ARE FLIP-FLOPPING FOR ONE
REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY:
PRESIDENT OBAMA TOLD US TO DO
SO.
>> I'M ASKING THE FCC TO
RECLASSIFY INTERNET SERVICE
UNDER TITLE II OF THE LAW KNOWN
AS THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT.
PAY PAY ON NOVEMBER 10TH,
PRESIDENT OBAMA ASKED THE FCC TO
IMPLEMENT HIS PLAN FOR
REGULATING THE INTERNET.
ONE THAT FAVORS GOVERNMENT
REGULATION OVER MARKETPLACE
COMPETITION.
AS HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED IN
THE PRESS, THE FCC HAS BEEN SCAM
BELLING EVER SINCE TO FIGURE OUT
A WAY TO DO JUST THAT.
THE COURTS WILL ULTIMATELY
DECIDE THIS ORDER'S FATE.
LITIGANTS ARE ALREADY LINING UP
TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THESE
NEW RULES.
AND GIVEN THIS ORDER'S MANY
GLARING LEGAL FLAWS, THEY'LL
HAVE PLENTY OF FODDER.
BUT IF THIS ORDER MANAGES TO
SURVIVE JUDICIAL REVIEW, THESE
WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES:
HIGHER BROADBAND PRICES, SLOWER
BROADBAND SPEEDS, LESS BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT, LESS INNOVATION, AND
FEWER OPTIONS FOR AMERICAN
CONSUMERS.
PUT SIMPLY, PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET IS
NOT THE SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM.
HIS PLAN IS THE PROBLEM.
THIS ORDER IMPOSES INTRUSIVE
GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT
WON'T WORK TO SOLVE A PROBLEM
THAT DOESN'T EXIST USING LEGAL
AUTHORITY, THE FCC DOESN'T HAVE.
ACCORDINGLY, I DISSENT.
TO START, THE COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO ADOPT PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S PLAN MARKS A MONUMENTAL
SHIFT TOWARD GOVERNMENT CONTROL
OF THE INTERNET.
IT GIVES THE FCC THE POWER TO
MICROMANAGE VIRTUALLY EVERY
ASPECT OF HOW THE INTERNET
WORKS.
IT'S AN OVERREACH THAT WILL LET
A WASHINGTON BURE KRA HE SEE AND
NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE
THE FUTURE OF THE ONLINE WORLD.
ONE FACET OF THAT CONTROL IS
RATE REGULATION.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE FCC WILL
REGULATE THE RATES THAT ISPs
MAY CHARGE AND WILL SET A PRICE
OF ZERO FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL
ARRANGEMENTS.
AND THE ORDER GOES OUT OF ITS
WAY TO REJECT CALLS TO FORBEAR
FROM SECTION 201'S AUTHORIZATION
OF RATE REGULATION.
AND IT EXPRESSLY INVITES PARTIES
TO FILE SUCH COMPLAINTS WITH THE
COMMISSION.
A GOVERNMENT AGENCY DECIDING
WHETHER A RATE IS LAWFUL IS THE
VERY DEFINITION OF RATE
REGULATION.
NOW ALTHOUGH THE ORDER PLAINLY
REGULATES RATES, THE PLAN TAKES
PAINS TO CLAIM THAT IT IS NOT
IMPOSING WHAT IT CALLS EX-ANTE
RATE REGULATION.
OF COURSE THAT CONCEIVES THAT
THE NEW REGULATORY REGIME WILL
INVOLVE EX-POST RATE REGULATION.
BUT EVEN THE AGENCY'S SUGGESTION
THAT IT TODAY, QUOTE, CANNOT
ENVISION EX-ANTE REGULATIONS,
AGAIN, QUOTE, IN THIS CONTEXT,
SAYS NOTHING WHAT A FUTURE
COMMISSION, PERHAPS THIS VERY
COMMISSION, COULD ENVISION.
JUST AS PERNICIOUS AS THE FCC'S
NEW INTERNET CONDUCT STANDARD, A
VAGUE STANDARD THAT GIVES THE
FCC A ROVING MANDATE TO REVIEW
BUSINESS MODELS AND UPEND
PRICING PLANS THAT BENEFIT
CONSUMERS.
USAGE-BASED PRICING PLANS AND
SPONSORED DATA PLANS ARE THE
CURRENT TARGETS.
SO IF A COMPANY DOESN'T WANT TO
OFFER AN EXPENSIVE UNLIMITED
DATA PLAN, THEY COULD FIND
ITSELF IN THE FCC'S CROSSHAIR.
OUR STANDARD SHOULD BE SIMPLE.
IF YOU LIKE YOUR CURRENT SERVICE
PLAN, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP
YOUR CURRENT SERVICE PLAN.
THE FCC SHOULDN'T TAKE IT AWAY
FROM YOU.
BANNING DIVERSE SERVICE PLANS
WOULD JUST HURT CONSUMERS,
ESPECIALLY THE MIDDLE CLASS AND
LOW INCOME AMERICANS WHO ARE THE
BIGGEST BENEFICIARIES OF THESE
PLANS.
IN ALL, THE FCC WILL HAVE ALMOST
UNFETTERED DISCRETION TO DECIDE
WHAT BUSINESS PRACTICES CLEAR
THE BUREAUCRATIC BAR, SO THESE
WON'T BE THE LAST PLANS TARGETED
BY THE AGENCY.
AS THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION WROTE JUST TWO DAYS
AGO, THIS OPEN-ENDED RULE WILL,
QUOTE, BE ANYTHING BUT CLEAR AND
SUGGEST THAT THE FCC BELIEVES IT
HAS BROUGHT AUTHORITY TO PURSUE
ANY NUMBER OF PRACTICES.
THE EFF WENT ON: AND A
MULTIFACTOR TEST GIVES THE FCC
AN AWFUL LOT OF DISCRETION,
POTENTIALLY GIVING AN UNFAIR
ADVANTAGE TO PARTIES WITH
INSIDER INFLUENCE.
WELL SAID.
THEN, THERE IS THE TEMPORARY
FORBEARANCE.
ALTHOUGH THE ORDER --
FORBEARANCE FROM SOME TITLE II
RULES -- LIGHT-TOUCH REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK, IN REALITY, IT ISN'T
LIGHT AT ALL.
COMING AS IT DOES WITH THE
CAVEAT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS COME
TO EXPECT FROM WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN ADDITION TO RATE REGULATION,
TARIFFS, LAST MILE UNBUNDLING,
BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS,
ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND ENTRY
AND EXIT REGULATION, THE PLAN
ALSO REPEATEDLY STATES THAT IT
IS ONLY FORBEARING AT THIS TIME.
FOR OTHER RULES, THE FCC WILL
REFRAIN,
FOR NOW.
AT THIS TIME, FOR NOW.
HMM.
TO BE SURE, WITH RESPECT TO SOME
RULES, THE AGENCY SAID THAT IT
CANNOT ENVISION GOING FURTHER.
BUT AS THE HISTORY OF THIS VERY
PROCEEDING MAKES CLEAR,
ASSURANCES LIKE THESE DON'T TEND
TO LAST VERY LONG.
IN OTHER WORDS, EXPECT
FORBEARANCE TO FADE AND THE
REGULATIONS TO RATCHET UP AS
TIME GOES ON.
MOREOVER, CONSUMERS WILL BE
WORSE OFF UNDER PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S PLAN TO REGULATE THE
INTERNET.
CONSUMERS SHOULD EXPECT THEIR
BILLS TO GO UP AND THEY SHOULD
EXPECT THAT BROADBAND WILL BE
SLOWER GOING FORWARD.
THIS ISN'T WHAT ANYONE WAS
PROMISED, TO SAY THE LEAST.
FIRST, BROADBAND TAXES.
ONE AVENUE FOR HIGHER BILLS IS
THE NEW TAXES AND FEES THAT WILL
BE APPLIED TO BROADBAND.
AND HERE'S THE BACKGROUND.
IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PHONE BILL,
YOU WILL SEE A LINE ITEM THAT
SAYS "UNIVERSAL SERVICE FEE" OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THESE FEES, WHAT MOST AMERICANS
CALL TAXES, ARE PAID BY
AMERICANS ON THEIR TELEPHONE
SERVICE.
THEY FUNNEL ABOUT $9 BILLION
EACH YEAR THROUGH THE FCC.
NOW CONSUMERS HAVEN'T HAD TO PAY
THESE TAXES ON THEIR BROADBAND
BILLS BECAUSE BROADBAND HAS
NEVER BEFORE BEEN A TITLE II
SERVICE.
BUT NOW, IT IS.
SO THE ORDER EXPLICITLY OPENS
THE DOOR TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN NEW TAXES.
INDEED IT REPEATEDLY STATES THAT
IT IS ONLY DEFERRING A DECISION
ON NEW BROADBAND TAXES, NOT
PROHIBITING THEM.
THIS IS FIG LEAF FORBEARANCE.
INDEED THE FCC HAS ALREADY
REFERRED THE QUESTION OF
ASSESSING IT FEDERAL AND STATE
TAXES ON BROADBAND TO THE
FEDERAL STATE JOINT BOARD ON
UNIVERSAL SERVICE AND HAS
REQUESTED A RECOMMENDED DECISION
BY APRIL 7TH, 2015, RIGHT BEFORE
TAX DAY.
IT'S NO SURPRISE THAT MANY VIEW
THIS REFERRAL AS A QUESTION OF
HOW, NOT WHETHER, TO TAX
BROADBAND.
STATES HAVE ALREADY BEGUN
DISCUSSIONS ON HOW THEY WILL
SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY.
AND THE FCC'S OWN PREFERENCE IS
PRETTY CLEAR.
THE ORDER ARGUES THAT TAXING
BROADBAND, QUOTE, POTENTIALLY
COULD SPREAD THE BASE OF
CONTRIBUTIONS AND COULD ADD TO
THE STABILITY OF THE UNIVERSAL
SERVICE FUND.
FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS
BELTWAY ARGOT, LET ME TRANSLATE.
TAXING BROADBAND WOULD MAKE IT
EASIER TO SPEND MORE OF YOUR
MONEY WITH MINIMAL PUBLIC
OVERSIGHT.
AND WE'VE SEEN THIS GAME PLAYED
BEFORE.
DURING REFORM OF THE E RATE
PROGRAM IN JULY OF 2014, THE FCC
SECRETLY TOLD LOBBYISTS THAT IT
WOULD RAISE USF TACKS AFTER THE
ELECTION TO PAY FOR PROMISES IT
WAS MAKING.
SURE ENOUGH IN DECEMBER OF 2014,
THE AGENCY DID JUST THAT.
INCREASING E RATE SPENDING AND,
WITH IT, THESE TELEPHONE TAXES
BY $1.5 BILLION PER YEAR.
PUBLIC REPORTS INDICATED THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS EAGER TO
TAP THIS NEW REVENUE STREAM AND
SOON TO SPEND MORE OF CONSUMERS'
HARD EARNED DOLLARS.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO BROADBAND,
READ MY LIPS: MORE NEW TAXES
ARE COMING.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHEN.
SECOND EFFECT ON CONSUMERS,
SLOWER BROADBAND.
THESE INTERNET REGULATIONS WILL
WORK -- IN TERMS OF BROADBAND
SPEEDS.
THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH
EVIDENCE THAT TITLE II
REGULATIONS WILL SLOW INVESTMENT
AND INNOVATION IN BROADBAND
NETWORKS.
LET'S JUST REMEMBER THAT
BROADBAND NETWORKS DON'T HAVE TO
BE BUILT.
CAPITAL DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
INVESTED.
RISKS TO DEPLOY -- TO BE TAKEN.
THE MORE DIFFICULT THE FCC MAKES
THE BUSINESS CASE FOR
DEPLOYMENT, THE LESS LIKELY IT
IS THAT BROADBAND PROVIDERS, BIG
AND SMALL, WILL CONNECT
AMERICANS WITH DIGITAL
OPPORTUNITIES.
THE OLD WORLD OFFERS A
CAUTIONARY TALE HERE, COMPARE
THE BROADBAND MARKETPLACE IN THE
UNITED STATES TO THAT OF EUROPE.
WHERE BROADBAND GENERALLY IS
TREATED AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.
TODAY, 82% OF AMERICANS HAVE
ACCESS TO 25 MEGABIT PER SECOND
BROADBAND SPEEDS.
IN EUROPE, THAT FIGURE IS ONLY
54%.
MOREOVER IN THE UNITED STATES,
AVERAGE MOBILE BROADBAND SPEEDS
ARE 30% FASTER THAN THEY ARE IN
WESTERN EUROPE.
IT'S NO WONDER THAT MANY
EUROPEANS ARE PERPLEXED BY WHAT
IS TAKING PLACE AT THE FCC.
JUST THIS WEEK, THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE
EUROPEAN PEOPLE'S PARTY, THE
LARGEST PARTY IN THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, OBSERVED THAT THE
FCC, AND I QUOTE, AT THE BEHEST
OF PRESIDENT OBAMA, WAS ABOUT
ABOUT TO IMPOSE THE TYPE OF
REGULATION WHICH HAS LED EUROPE
TO FALL BEHIND THE U.S. IN TERMS
OF LEVELS OF INVESTMENT.
MAKING ALL OF THIS WORSE IS THE
FACT THAT THE FCC NOW WELCOMES
LITIGATION FROM INDIVIDUAL
CLAIMS ABOUT THE JUSTNESS AND
REASONABLENESS OF ISP PRICING TO
SPRAWLING CLASS ACTIONS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW INTERNET
CONDUCT RULE AS AN APPROPRIATE
MEANS OF REGULATING THE INTERNET
ECONOMY.
JUDGING FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN
THE PATENT WORLD THIS, WILL BE A
BOON FOR TRIAL LAWYERS.
WHAT I'VE MENTIONED SO FAR ARE
JUST THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES
OF RECLASSIFICATION.
THERE ARE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES AS WELL.
THE FEES THAT BROADBAND
PROVIDERS FROM SMALL TOWN CABLE
COMPANIES TO NEW ENTRANTS LIKE
GOOGLE MUST NOW PAY USING THINGS
LIKE UTILITY POLES WILL GO UP BY
AN ESTIMATED 150 MILLION TO
$200 MILLION PER YEAR.
RECLASSIFICATION WILL EXPOSE
MANY SMALL COMPANIES TO HIGHER
STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.
HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR
INSTANCE, COMPANIES WILL FACE AN
INSTANT 11% INCREASE IN TAXES
UNDER GROSS RECEIPTS.
THAT'S A BIG BITE THAT'S GOING
TO LEAVE A WELT ON CONSUMERS'
W
WALLETS.
ALL OF THESE ADD UP.
EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON FEES AND
NEW COSTS LIKE LAWYERS AND
ACCOUNTANTS HAS TO COME FROM
SOMEWHERE.
EITHER FROM THE POCKETS OF THE
AMERICAN CONSUMER OR PROJECTS TO
DEPLOY FASTER BROADBAND.
AND SO, THESE HIGHER COSTS WILL
LEAD TO LOWER SPEEDS AND HIGHER
PRICES.
IN SHORT, LESS VALUE FOR THE
AMERICAN CONSUMER.
NOW THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT WHAT I
HEARD CONSUMERS WANTED WHEN I
HOSTED THE TEXAS FORUM ON
INTERNET REGULATION IN COLLEGE
STATION, TEXAS.
THE FCC'S ONLY FIELD HEARING ON
NET NEUTRALITY WHERE AUDIENCE
MEMBERS WERE ALLOWED TO SPEAK.
NOW THERE, INTERNET INNOVATORS,
STUDENTS, EVERYDAY PEOPLE TOLD
ME THEY WANTED SOMETHING ELSE
FROM THE FCC, SOMETHING THAT I
THOUGHT HAD A FAMILIAR RING TO
IT.
THEY WANTED COMPETITION,
COMPETITION, COMPETITION.
AND YET, LITERALLY NOTHING IN
THIS ORDER WILL PROMOTE
COMPETITION AMONG ISPs.
TO THE CONTRARY, RECLASSIFYING
BROADBAND WILL DRIVE COMPETITORS
OUT OF BUSINESS.
MONOPOLY RULES, DESIGNED FOR THE
MONOPOLY ERA, WILL INEVITABLY
MOVE US IN THE DIRECTION OF A
MONOPOLY.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PLAN TO
REGULATE THE INTERNET IS NOTHING
MORE THAN A KINGSBURY COMMITMENT
FOR THE DIGITAL AGE.
IF YOU LIKED THE MA BELL
MONOPOLY IN THE 20TH CENTURY,
YOU WILL LOVE PA BROADBAND IN
THE 21ST.
BUT THIS ISN'T JUST MY VIEW.
THE PRESIDENT'S OWN SMALL
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
APPARENTLY ACTING INDEPENDENTLY,
ADMONISHED THE FCC THAT ITS
PROPOSED RULES WOULD UNDULY
BURDEN SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND FOLLOWING THE PRESIDENT'S
LEAD, THE FCC IGNORES THIS
ADMONITION BY APPLYING HEAVY
HANDED TITLE 2 REGULATIONS TO
EACH AND EVERY SMALL BROADBAND
PROVIDER AS IF IT WERE AN
INDUSTRIAL GIANT.
NOT SURPRISINGLY, SMALL INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE WORRIED.
AND I HEARD THIS FOR MYSELF AT
THE TEXAS FORUM ON INTERNET R
REGULATION OF THE ONE OF THE
PANELISTS OWNS ALAMO BROADBAND,
WHICH IS A WIRELESS ISP THAT
SERVES ONLY 700 PEOPLE ACROSS
500 SQUARE MILES SOUTH OF
SAN ANTONIO.
WHAT DID JOE THINK OF TITLE II?
HE THINKS IT'S PRETTY MUCH A
TERRIBLE IDEA.
HIS STAFF IS, AND I QUOTE,
PRETTY BUSY JUST DEALING WITH
THE LOADS WE ALREADY CARRY.
MORE STAFF TO COVER REGULATIONS
MEANS LESS FUNDS TO RUN THE
NETWORK AND PROVIDE THE VERY
SERVICE OUR CUSTOMERS DEPEND ON.
OTHER WISTs FEEL THE SAME WAY.
LAST WEEK 142 OF THEM JOINED THE
CHORUS.
THEY'VE DEPLOYED WIRELESS
BROADBAND TO CUSTOMERS WHO OFTEN
HAVE NO ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING
MY PARENTS.
THEY OFTEN RUN ON A SHOESTRING
BUDGET WITH JUST A FEW PEOPLE TO
RUN THE BUSINESS, INSTALL
EQUIPMENT, AND HANDLE SERVICE
CALLS.
THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE, AND EVEN
IF THEY DID, THEY HAVE NO
ABILITY TO TAKE ON COMMERCIAL
GIANTS LIKE NETFLIX.
AND THEY SAY THAT THE FCC'S NEW
REGULATORY INTRUSIONS INTO OUR
BUSINESSES WOULD LIKELY FORCE US
TO RAISE PRICES, DELAY
DEPLOYMENT EXPANSION, OR BOTH.
OR CONSIDER THE VIEWS OF 24 OF
THE COUNTRY'S SMALLEST ISPs.
EACH WITH FEWER THAN 1,000
RESIDENTIAL BROADBAND CUSTOMERS.
THEY TOLD US THAT TITLE II WILL
BADLY STRAIN OUR LIMITED
RESOURCES, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO
IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS AND NO BUDGET
LINE ITEMS FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
OR HOW ABOUT THE 43 MUNICIPAL
BROADBAND PROVIDERS THAT FLATLY
TOLD THE FCC THAT TITLE II WILL
TRIGGER CONSEQUENCES BEYOND THE
COMMISSION'S CONTROL AND RISK
SERIOUS HARM TO OUR ABILITY TO
FUND AND DEPLOY BROADBAND
WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONCRETE
BENEFIT FOR CONSUMERS OR EDGE
PROVIDERS THAT THE MARKET IS NOT
ALREADY PROVING TODAY WITHOUT
THE AID OF ADDITIONAL
REGULATIONS.
AND THERE'S A SPECIAL IRONY THAT
GIVEN THAT RIGHT BEFORE THIS
VOTE AS YOU HEARD, THE FCC VOTED
TO PREEMPT STATE LAWS REGARDING
CITY-OWNED BROADBAND PROJECTS.
THIS IS AN INCENTIVE PRESIDENT
OBAMA HIMSELF ANNOUNCED JUST
LAST MONTH IN CEDAR FALLS, IOWA.
THE FCC DUTIFULLY IS
IMPLEMENTING IT.
BUT CEDAR FALLS UTILITIES, THE
VERY MUNICIPAL BROADBAND
PROVIDER THE PRESIDENT PROMOTED,
TELLS US THAT TITLE II IS,
QUOTE, A TREMENDOUS MISTAKE.
SO WHAT DOES THE ORDER TELL
AMERICANS WHOSE ISP ISN'T A C
COMCAST, AN AT&T A GOOGLE OR A
SPRINT?
WHAT DOES IT TELL THOSE WHOSE
SERVICE WILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE
AS A DIRECT RESULT OF
RECLASSIFICATION?
WHAT DOES IT TELL THOSE WHO MAY
LOSE THEIR INTERNET SERVICE IF
THEIR SMALL PROVIDER GOES OUT OF
BUSINESS?
WHAT DOES IT TELL THOSE WHO
WORKED FOR YEARS TO SERVE THEIR
COMMUNITY AND BUILD A BUSINESS?
ONE THAT'S FINALLY IN THE BLACK.
THERE'S NO EXPLANATION.
THERE'S NOT EVEN AN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
INSTEAD, THERE'S JUST A SMUG AND
IMPLICIT ASSURANCE THAT IT WON'T
BE THAT BAD AND YOU PROBABLY HAD
IT COMING ANYWAY.
SO THE FCC IS ABANDONING A
20-YEAR BIPARTISAN FRAMEWORK FOR
KEEPING THE INTERNET FREE AND
OPEN IN FAVOR OF GREAT
DEPRESSION ERA LEGISLATION
DESIGNED TO REGULATE MA BELL.
BUT AT LEAST WE'RE GETTING
SOMETHING IN RETURN, RIGHT?
WRONG.
THE INTERNET IS NOT BROKEN.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM FOR THE
GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE.
THAT THE INTERNET WORKS, THAT
INTERNET FREEDOM WORKS, SHOULD
BE APPARENT TO ANYONE WITH AN
APPLE IPHONE OR MICROSOFT
SURFACE.
A SAMSUNG SMART TV OR ROCU, A
THERMOSTAT OR FIT BIT.
WITH WE LIVE IN A TIME WHERE YOU
CAN BUY A MOVIE FROM iTUNES,
WATCH A MUSIC VIDEO ON YOUTUBE,
LISTEN TO A PERSONALIZED PLAY
LIST ON PANDORA, WATCH YOUR
FAVORITE NOVEL COME TO LIFE ON
AMAZON STREAMING VIDEO, HELP
SOMEONE MAKE A POTATO SALAD ON
KICK STARTER, CHECK OUT THE
LATEST COMIC ON XKCD, SEE WHAT
SEINFELD HAS BEEN UP TO ON
CRACKLE, NAVIGATE BAD TRAFFIC
WITH WAVES, WATCH AN EVENTFUL
FCC MEETING ONLINE, AND DO
LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF OTHER
THINGS WITH AN ONLINE
CONNECTION.
AT THE START OF THIS MILLENNIUM,
WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THIS
INTERNET INNOVATION.
AND NO, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DIDN'T BUILD THAT.
SOMEBODY ELSE MADE THAT HAPPEN.
FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES,
THE INTERNET, AS WE KNOW IT,
DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL THE PRIVATE
SECTOR DEVELOPED IT IN THE
1990s.
AND IT'S BEEN THE COMMERCIAL
INTERNET THAT HAS LED TO THE
CREATIVITY, THE INNOVATION,
FRANKLY THE ENGINEERING G GENIUS
WE SEE TODAY.
NEVERTHELESS, IT ARGUES THAT
BROADBAND PROVIDERS HOLD ALL THE
TOOLS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE
CONSUMERS, DEGRADE CONTENT, OR
DEFAVOR THE CONTENT THAT THEY
DON'T LIKE.
AND IT ASSERTS THAT THE FCC
CONTINUES TO HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT
OTHER BROADBAND PROVIDERS
INVOLVING BLOCKING OR DEGRADING
THIRD PARTY APPLICATIONS.
THE EVIDENCE OF THESE CONTINUING
THREATS?
THERE IS NONE.
IT'S ALL ANECDOTE, HYPOTHESIS,
AND HYSTERIA.
AND IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SEE
THIS PLAN, YOU WOULD SEE THAT
FOR YOURSELF.
A SMALL ISP IN NORTH CAROLINA
ALLEGEDLY BLOCKED VOIP CALLS A
DECADE AGO.
COMCAST CAPPED BIT TORRENT
TRAFFIC EIGHT YEARS AGO.
APPLE INTRODUCED FACETIME OVER
WI-FI FIRST, CELLULAR NETWORKS
LATER.
SCATTERED EXAMPLES THIS --
AREN'T ENOUGH TO TELL A STORY
ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY.
THE BOOGEY MAN NEVER HAD IT SO
EASY. SO WHAT IS THERE TO FEAR?
THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR
IS FEAR ITSELF.
BUT IF THE FCC INSTEAD INTONES
THE SCARIEST WORDS FOR ANY
FRIEND OF INTERNET FREEDOM: I'M
FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND I'M
HERE TO HELP.
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, TITLE II
IS NOT JUST A SOLUTION IN SEARCH
OF A PROBLEM, IT'S A GOVERNMENT
SOLUTION THAT CREATES A REAL
WORLD PROBLEM.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE INTERNET
NEEDS AND IT'S NOT WHAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.
SO THAT'S SUBSTANCE.
A FEW WORDS ON PROCESS BRIEFLY.
WHEN THE COMMISSION LAUNCHED
THIS RULE MAKING, I SAID THAT WE
NEEDED TO GIVE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE A FULL AND FAIR
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS PROCESS.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE FALLEN
WOEFULLY SHORT OF THAT STANDARD.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE PLAN IN
FRONT OF US TODAY WAS NOT FORGED
WITH WITHIN THIS BUILDING
THROUGH A TRANSPARENT NOTICE AND
COMMENT RULE MAKING PROCESS.
INSTEAD, "THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL" REPORTS THAT IT WAS
DEVELOPED THROUGH, QUOTE, AN
UNUSUAL SECRETIVE EFFORT INSIDE
THE WHITE HOUSE, UNQUOTE.
INDEED WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS,
ACCORDING TO THE JOURNAL,
FUNCTIONED AS A PARALLEL VERSION
OF THE FCC.
THE WORK LED TO THE PRESIDENT'S
ANNOUNCEMENT IN NOVEMBER OF ITS
PLAN FOR INTERNET REGULATION.
A PLAN WHICH THE REPORT SAYS
BLIND SIGHTED THE FCC AND SWEPT
ASIDE MONTHS OF WORK BY CHAIRMAN
WHEELER TOWARD A COMPROMISE.
NOW OF COURSE, A FEW INSIDERS
WERE CLUED IN ABOUT WHAT WAS
TRANSPIRING.
HERE IS WHAT A LEADER FOR THE
GOVERNMENT FUNDED GROUP "FIGHT
FOR THE FUTURE" HAD TO SAY:
WE'VE BEEN HEARING TO WEEKS FROM
OUR ALLIES IN D.C. THAT THE ONLY
THING THAT COULD STOP FCC
CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER FROM MOVING
AHEAD WITH HIS SHAM PROPOSAL TO
GUT NET NEUTRALITY WAS IF WE
COULD GET THE PRESIDENT TO STEP
IN.
SO WE DID EVERYTHING IN OUR
POWER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
WE TOOK THE GLOVES OFF AND
PLAYED HARD.
AND NOW WE GET TO CELEBRATE A
SWEET VICTORY.
CONGRATULATIONS.
WHAT THE PRESS HAS CALLED A
PARALLEL FCC AT THE WHITE HOUSE,
OPENED ITS DOOR TO A PLETHORA OF
SPECIAL INTEREST ACTIVISTS.
DAILY -- DEMAND PROGRESS, FIGHT
FOR THE FUTURE, FREE PRESS, AND
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE JUST TO NAME A
FEW.
INDEED, EVEN BEFORE ACTIVISTS
WERE BLOCKING THE CHAIRMAN'S
DRIVEWAY LATE LAST YEAR, SOME OF
THEM HAD MET WITH EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OFFICIALS.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE?
THEY CERTAINLY COULDN'T GET
WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS.
THEY WERE SHUT OUT OF THE
PROCESS ALL TOGETHER.
THEY WERE BEING PLAYED FOR
FOOLS.
AND THE SITUATION DIDN'T IMPROVE
ONCE THE WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCED
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PLAN.
AND, QUOTE, ASKED THE FCC TO
IMPLEMENT IT.
THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF US
TODAY DIFFERS DRAMATICALLY FROM
THE PROPOSAL THAT THE FCC PUT
OUT FOR COMMENTS LAST MAY.
AND IT DIFFER SO IS DRAMATICALLY
THAT EVEN ZEALOUS NET NEUTRALITY
ADVOCATES FRANTICALLY RUSHED IN
IN RECENT DAYS TO MAKE LAST
MINUTE FILINGS REGISTERING THEIR
CONCERNS THAT THE FCC MIGHT BE
GOING TOO FAR.
YET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THIS
DAY HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO SEE
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PLAN.
IT HAS REMAINED HIDDEN.
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE UNIQUE
IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET,
COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY AND I
ASKED FOR THE PLAN TO BE
RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.
SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN JOHN THUNE AND HOUSE
COMMITTEE -- HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ENERGY AND
COMMERCE CHAIRMAN FRED UPTON DID
THE SAME.
AND ACCORDING TO A SURVEY LAST
WEEK BY A RESPECTED DEMOCRATIC
POLLING FIRM, 79% OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE FAVORED MAKING
THE DOCUMENT PUBLIC.
BUT STILL, THE FCC HAS INSISTED
ON KEEPING IT BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS.
WE HAVE TO PASS PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S 317-PAGE PLAN SO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN FIND OUT
WHAT'S IN IT.
THIS ISN'T HOW THE FCC SHOULD
OPERATE.
WE SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT
AGENCY, MAKING DECISIONS IN A
TRANSPARENT MANNER BASED ON THE
LAW AND THE FACTS AND THE
RECORD.
WE SHOULDN'T BE A RUBBER STAMP
FOR POLITICAL DECISIONS MADE BY
THE WHITE HOUSE.
AND, WE SHOULD HAVE RELEASED
THIS PLAN TO THE PUBLIC,
SOLICITED THEIR FEEDBACK,
INCORPORATED THAT INPUT INTO THE
PLAN AND THEN PROCEEDED TO A
VOTE.
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR US TO
RESOLVE THIS MATTER TODAY.
THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE CRISIS IN
THE INTERNET MARKETPLACE THAT
DEMANDS IMMEDIATE ACTION.
NOW THE BACKERS OF THE
PRESIDENT'S PLAN KNOW THIS, BUT
THEY ALSO KNOW THE DETAILS OF
THE PLAN CANNOT STAND UP TO THE
LIGHT OF DAY.
THEY KNOW THAT THE MORE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE LEARN ABOUT IT,
THE LESS THEY WILL LIKE IT.
THAT IS WHY THIS PLAN WAS
DEVELOPED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AT
THE WHITE HOUSE.
AND THAT IS WHY THE PLAN HAS
REMAINED HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC
VIEW.
THESE ARE MY ONLY CONCERNS, A
CURSORY LOOK AT THE PLAN REVEALS
GLARING LEGAL FLAWS ENSURING
LITIGATION FOR A LONG, LONG
TIME.
RATHER THAN ADDRESS THEM TODAY,
I WILL RESERVE THEM FOR MY
WRITTEN STATEMENT.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS
PROCEEDING, I QUOTED GOOGLE'S
FORMER CEO ERIC SCHMIDT WHO ONCE
SAY THE INTERNET IS THE FIRST
THING HUMANITY HAS BUILT THAT
HUMANITY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND.
THIS PROCEEDING MAKES IT
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE FCC
STILL DOESN'T GET IT.
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CLEARLY
DO.
THE PROPOSED GOVERNMENT
REGULATION OF THE INTERNET HAS
AWAKENED A SLEEPING GIANT, AND
I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT WE WILL LOOK
BACK ON TODAY'S VOTE AS AN
ABERRATION AND TEMPORARY
DEVIATION FROM THE BIPARTISAN
CONSENSUS THAT HAS SERVED US SO
WELL.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS PLAN
WILL BE VACATED BY A COURT,
REVERSED BY CONGRESS, OR
OVERTURNED BY A FUTURE
COMMISSION.
I DO BELIEVE ITS DAYS ARE
NUMBERED.
FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, I
DISSENT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO
TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK THE HARD
WORKING STAFF IN MY OFFICE,
MATTHEW BARRY, NICK DEGANI,
BRENDAN CARR, AND ALL OF THE
OTHERS WHO HAVE LABORED THESE
MANY WEEKS ON A VERY DIFFICULT
ITEM UNDER TRYING PERSONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES TO DELIVER THE
PRODUCT WE DELIVERED TODAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> CHAIRMAN WHEELER: