No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation Act. Many small businesses and many of my neighbors in the Tampa Bay area have experienced loss of internet, TV and phone services. I want to ensure that my neighbors and businesses are protected--I am fighting for them to receive the services they paid for. The No Rate Regulation Act aims to dismantle the open internet and take the ``cop off the beat'' by hamstringing the FCC's ability to protect the consumer. Because of these concerns on behalf of my neighbors and small businesses, today I will vote against this bill.

This is timely legislation for all the wrong reasons. On April 1 of this year, Frontier Communications assumed Verizon's TV, internet and land-line phone services in the Tampa Bay area. Since the transition, small businesses and individual consumers in Florida have experienced loss of internet, TV and phone services. Consumers are paying for services they are not receiving. Even now, customers are reporting waiting for Frontier's technicians that are ``no shows''. Frontier appears to be unable to provide the necessary services to my neighbors, at the present time.

I am here today to ensure all customers are protected. I have been fighting to protect the consumer and for robust public interest reviews. On February 2nd I stated in my letter to the FCC regarding the proposed Bright House Networks/Time Warner Cable/Charter merger that it is appropriate for the FCC to investigate that ``best practices'' are present on behalf consumers.

The awesome power of the internet should be used to build up our community and grow opportunity for our children. I am proud that last year Tampa was selected as one of only 27 communities nationwide to participate in ConnectHOME, which promotes locally tailored solutions to help bridge the gap in digital access for working-class households by addressing the barriers they have to high-speed broadband.

We should be dedicated to significant community boosts in access to digital opportunities for our students. We should be working with all agencies to develop the types of skills needed to secure today's higher paying jobs for all our kids. Instead of inviting a promising tomorrow, Republicans have chosen to focus on a bad bill with no future today.

On the House floor Republicans have offered the No Rate Regulation Act. If passed it could undermine key provisions in the FCC's Open Internet order and harm the Commission's ability to protect consumers. This bill simply fails to define a clear definition and experts assert that the bill could result in unintended consequences. The No Rate Regulation Act is overly broad and extends far beyond the goals of codifying the FCC's forbearance from applying provisions of the Communications Act related to tariffs, rate approval, or other forms of utility regulation. The FCC should not be stymied in their participation of mergers and acquisitions like the Bright House/TWC/ Charter proposal. For example, I have said that BHN's Connect2Compete Program should be maintained, but as written, this legislation could undermine the FCC's ability to encourage customer service agreements that protect the most vulnerable.

We have seen the Comcast Universal merger approval include the supply of an affordable internet program called the Internet Essentials. These stipulations are important and should be maintained in other deals moving forward.

Mr. Chair, today I will vote against this Republican bill that could undermine key provisions in the FCC's Open Internet Order and harm the FCC's ability to protect consumers. We should not be undermining the FCC. This legislation could exacerbate already negative consequences for my neighbors in the Tampa Bay area. I will continue work to protect consumers and neighbors in my community and vote no on the No Rate Regulation Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source