Net Neutrality

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today our Democratic colleagues insisted on an aimless vote on the issue of net neutrality. This is what has been called by the Wall Street Journal a vague name which essentially is cover for regulation of the internet like a utility under the previous regime, which is the Obama-era regime.

Following the FCC issuance last December of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, our Democratic colleagues vowed to make net neutrality a campaign issue.

To me, one of the most maddening things about the title ``net neutrality'' is that this is the opposite of neutrality. This is all about more regulation of the internet.

Oh, by the way, I noticed that the internet seemed to be working just fine while this Restoring Internet Freedom Order by the FCC was in effect.

How did they do this? By painting the FCC's decision as proof somehow--and I am not really sure how, other than maybe gullible press and people willing to just accept their argument at face value--that some of us are against net neutrality. That is just not the case.

I believe the free market has done more to help the internet grow and succeed as an engine of commerce and something that allows us to communicate with our friends and family, share pictures and the like, beyond our wildest dreams. I guess Thomas Friedman's book ``The World is Flat'' talked about how one of the most important events in recent history was the development of the world wide web in 1995. We have come a long way since 1995, and the internet has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, which is the reason the last thing we should want is the government to come in and inject itself with more controls.

We have always supported a free and open internet. Internet service providers should not be able to block, slow, or otherwise unfairly discriminate against any legal website or online service. In fact, it was our Democratic colleagues who blocked Republicans from passing the bill earlier today that would have prevented the internet service providers from being able to do just that.

The issue up for debate this week, though, was how to classify these providers for regulatory purposes, and here, there was a choice. Our side of the aisle has long favored a light-touch approach that is offered under title I of the Telecommunications Act. Our Democratic friends favor a more onerous approach under title II. That is why they favor repealing the FCC's recent order, returning to Depression-era regulations implemented under the Obama administration.

Our Democratic colleagues have now gotten their wish, in a way. They voted here in the Senate to repeal the current FCC order by using the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress the power to nullify agency rules and requires only a simple majority to pass. But our colleague, the senior Senator from South Dakota, is correct when he refers to their stunt as ``political theater.'' It is merely a ``show vote.''

First of all, even though our Democratic colleagues may have joined together to win this vote on the Congressional Review Act in the Senate, there is simply no indication that the House plans to take it up or that the President would sign it if they did.

Second, contrary to supporters' claims, the resolution will not ``restore'' net neutrality. In fact, it would accomplish the opposite. This resolution would remove rightful oversight of noncompetitive behavior and consumer protection from the Federal Trade Commission and, instead, subject ISPs to oversight by the FCC, including regulations regarding consumer data privacy, approval or disapproval of new innovation, and dictating the terms and conditions of service. That would create a major imbalance in our internet ecosystem between content and platform regulation, as edge providers like Google and Facebook would not be subject to the same standards as broadband providers.

Finally, the resolution would increase the digital divide across America, and that is no small matter. As Brent Wilkes, the former CEO of LULAC, wrote recently in the Houston Chronicle, ``the CRA would . . . reinstate Depression-era Title II rules that have not created the open internet's engine of opportunity with a level playing field that proponents envisioned.''

He went on to say: ``Placing the internet back under Title II rules would . . . curb the critical infrastructure investment necessary for connecting more Americans to high-speed broadband, including nearly 4 million Texans--about 15 percent of the state's population--who live in rural communities that are difficult and costlier to connect.''

As I said when I began, I believe in an open and free internet, but the vote we just held does not make the internet more open or more free--just the opposite. Let's be blunt about it. This vote was simply a waste of time.

The light-touch regulatory treatment of internet service providers under the December 2017 FCC order was a return to the Clinton-era environment that allowed the internet to innovate and thrive. Imposing additional, stifling government regulations does not benefit consumers in the long run and, instead, allows FCC bureaucrats to pick winners and losers. That is why I opposed our Democratic colleagues' resolution today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source