Providing for Congressional Disapproval of A Rule Submitted By the Federal Communications Commission

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, only in Washington, DC, and perhaps only in the walls of this Capitol, is net neutrality regarded as a partisan issue. Only here are there accusations that the left or the right favor a position on net neutrality. In the rest of America, net neutrality is bipartisan; in fact, nonpolitical. It is the lifeblood of the internet. It is the animating principle that enables companies and individuals to have equal access to the internet without blocking, discriminating, price gouging, or favoring of some companies at the expense of others.

In fact, in legislatures across the country, like Connecticut, there have been proposals to do there what we are seeking to do here; that is, to preserve an open internet in accordance with the open internet order, which has been rolled back by the FCC. Strong net neutrality rules are accepted across the country on both sides of the aisle in State legislatures and State governments, in board rooms, and in all the communities where people come together seeking to communicate and use the internet in the highest and best way it can be used. One example, in New Haven, is SeeClickFix. SeeClickFix is a New Haven company that helps citizens communicate with their local governments to improve their community. The internet's incredible economic success and this company's have been made possible because it is a free and open platform. This company has a good idea. It can put that good idea to work, helping people make their local and State governments work better and be more responsive.

That success story has been repeated countless times because of net neutrality and the open internet. We are here to stop maligned rulemaking run amok. The FCC, under the leadership of its Chairman, has, in effect, rolled back the progress that was made with the open internet order. It defied 10 years of evidence and the pattern of market consolidation and merger that endangered the open internet. It defied evidence of discrimination that was taken over the rulemaking process, and it basically ignored a court order upholding the open internet order--a court order that was the result of indepth and determined litigation to stop that order, and that effort was rejected.

The Justice Department has shown, from AT&T's own internal documents, that it sought to use its merger with Time Warner to raise prices and to hinder competition from online video services. A proposed merger between T-Mobile and Sprint threatens to further reduce scarce competition in wireless. Big broadband companies have more financial incentive and less market deterrence to obstruct competition than ever before.

Chairman Pai's plan would enable those broadband companies holding near-monopolies over access to consolidate even more power. If broadband companies are able to block, throttle, or charge fees for certain applications on websites, the result will be higher pricing, less innovation, and fewer new products. Reversal of net neutrality is a consumer's worst nightmare, but it is also a nightmare for small businesses and for competition and innovation and creativity in America.

I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 52, the resolution of disapproval of the FCC's disastrous plan to roll back net neutrality. It is vital to protecting consumers and small businesses, preserving the open internet, and upholding the integrity of the rulemaking process.

If this effort fails to succeed, the challenge in the courts will overturn Chairman Pai's rollback of net neutrality because he embarked on a preordained purpose without proper rulemaking to overturn the rule adopted by the FCC before he became Chairman. When he initiated that process, he promised an ``open and transparent process,'' but the outcome was predetermined from the start. That is not the way rulemaking should occur. That is why the courts will overturn it, and that is why we should be protected and proactive in this body and pass S.J. Res. 52.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source