Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with Respect to Regulating the Internet and Broadband Industry Practices

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, soon the Senate will vote on the Hutchison resolution that, as the Presiding Officer said very eloquently, would overturn the decision of the Federal Communications Commission on what has come to be known as net neutrality. The bottom line for me is straightforward. A vote for the Hutchison resolution will enable a handful of special interests to occupy the Internet. These elites will then have the power to crowd out the voices for change and the ideas of the future. The Internet would become a glidepath for a relatively small number of people to gain enormously rather than an opportunity for all Americans to prosper.

I think some of the ideas that have been offered up with respect to the Hutchison resolution just defy the facts. For example, we had some discussion about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I wrote that section. It was a key development, in my view, in the growth of the Internet because it gave us a chance to deal with smut and some of the junk families have been so upset with without squelching the potential for the net. It enabled content sharers to grow, ever since we struck that thoughtful approach, rather than just go to a censorship regime. I have heard that somehow net neutrality would undo that particular provision. Nothing could be further from the truth. Net neutrality is exactly about what I sought to do in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was to make sure that all voices could flourish--not just the voices of a few but all voices could flourish.

If anybody wants to talk a bit more about section 230 in the Communications Decency Act, I am happy to have that discussion, but as the author of that provision, it is something I and a lot of other people who have worked in this field have felt was essential to the growth of the Internet, and we share that view just as we believe that, as the Presiding Officer does, net neutrality is critical to the growth of the Internet in the years ahead because the fundamental principles that underlie both section 230 and net neutrality are the same.

The debate about the Federal Communication Commission's decision goes right to the heart of what the Internet is all about. It has always been a platform where all the actors are equal, where everybody has that opportunity, as the Presiding Officer suggested, at the American dream. It is a place where, whether it is one dissenting voice screaming out for democratic change or one brilliant idea that forever changes the way that people and society organize, everyone has that opportunity.

I chair the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade. I think just one example of what we have seen is the Internet is going to be the shipping lane of the 21st century. This is the way societies are going to organize. This is the way people are going to come together. This is the way business is going to be conducted. Basically, net neutrality protects everybody's access to that shipping lane. It is not just going to be a place for the old-world business model. You bet the old-world business models are threatened by net neutrality. I understand that. I understand they are threatened by it. They have always been able to count on big, powerful, and well-connected interests and organizations to help them to dominate industry, and the Internet overturned that kind of thinking because it is the equalizer, it is the democratizer.

It just seems to me that when we open our morning newspaper day after day and see that the hope of the country is in innovation, in startups, in new ideas--it is not just in Silicon Valley, it is all over the country and all over the world--the last thing we want to do here in our country is adopt rules that would retard that development. And my view is that the power of the Internet--the network--is best utilized when content can move freely through it, and that is whether it is free from taxes, from liability, and certainly free from the kind of discrimination that would be allowed if the net neutrality rules were overturned.

Again, I touched on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and why that was so important to the growth of the net and why I think net neutrality is consistent with that. It is the same with respect to some other legislation in which I have been heavily involved.

I had the privilege of being one of the coauthors of the Internet Tax Freedom bill. What that was all about was trying to protect the Internet from discrimination--not all taxes altogether but discrimination. That, too, is a fundamental principle of the net neutrality rules, is trying to make sure the net is not going to be singled out by a handful of special interests who could, in effect, devise what amounts to their own lanes on the Internet and force everybody else to pay for it.

So despite what may even be the interests of some of these powerful interest groups--and I know they are all saying now that they have no intent to discriminate against content over their networks. History shows that they cave every time when shareholders come and say: Look, you have to take this step to generate a profit. I think the Internet is too important to leave those kinds of decisions vulnerable to what is inevitably going to be the cry from shareholders and others to maximize profits.

One last point, if I might. I see other colleagues waiting to speak. I think the Internet and the economy in this country that is driven by the Internet represent perhaps our greatest comparative advantage. I touched on the Internet being the shipping lane of the 21st century. You know, what I want us to do is enhance the American way, enhance American values, and use the Internet to promote those values, facilitate speech, and expand the marketplace.

The reality is that the American brand is something very special, very special all over the world. The fact is, we have small businesses, and we heard from them in hearings. I know the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee is here, Senator Rockefeller, and others. Hardly a day goes by that I don't wish I was back being a member of the Senate Commerce Committee because it is such an important committee, it does such important work. We saw in some of those first hearings on the Internet--we started looking at taxes and regulation and liability and the Communications Decency Act--we saw how small businesses that really could operate only in a relatively small area

for years and years suddenly, after they paid their Internet access charges, could go wherever they want, when they want, how they want, and they were equal to the most powerful groups and voices in the country. That is their opportunity. That is their chance to get their brand all over the world.

We ought to make sure we take no action that is going to make it harder for small entrepreneurs to exchange their goods and services far beyond their communities. We ought to be making judgments that allow them to get into every nook and cranny of the world with the American brand.

I hope my colleagues will reject this resolution. I believe the Internet has thrived precisely because of the principles of net neutrality. It has contributed to the American economy and to job creation because consumers ultimately get to see and get what they want as quickly as they want it.

It is going to be an important vote. I heard the Presiding Officer say that this was something of an issue for geeks, and from time to time, people have said I am one of those. But I will tell the Presiding Officer, I think ultimately the net is not about geeks, it is about democracy. This is the great democratizer. This is the trampoline that provides opportunities to people without power and clout.

I want to say to colleagues, particularly those who have mentioned section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as the author of that particular provision--and Senator Rockefeller remembers this huge outcry about smut. We were all concerned about smut at that time. And we said: There is a choice. We can either do, with respect to this debate, what makes sense for the future, and that is empower families and parents to get these filters so the Internet can grow and we can fight smut in a practical way, or we can do a lot of damage and come up with some sort of censorship regime.

As colleagues remember, essentially both approaches were included in the bill, and the approach that mandated censorship was struck down. Freedom won. The principles of net neutrality won in that first big battle fighting smut 15 years ago. If we were to undo the decisions of the Federal Communications Commission and move back to the days when you could talk about discriminating, you know, against the Internet, I think it would be a step against all the progress we have made in the last 15 years with respect to oversight and regulation and taxes.

This is an important vote, colleagues. When you read the morning newspaper and you see that it is the entrepreneurs and the startups and the innovators who are providing the path forward in a very difficult economy, I think you will see that the policies we have laid out for the last 15 years, whether it is the Communications Decency Act, whether it is other legislation--Chairman Rockefeller remembers when we wrote the digital signatures law in the Commerce Committee--these votes, these laws have all become law because they essentially were built on the very same principles of net neutrality, and that is freedom for all and a democratic Internet to provide opportunity to all Americans and not just the elites, not just a handful of special interests.

I commend Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Franken for their good work.

I often agree with Senator Hutchison. This is not one of those opportunities.

I hope my colleagues, when we have this vote on the extraordinarily important resolution involving net neutrality, will vote against the Hutchison resolution.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source