-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the specter of heavyhanded government regulation of the internet reared its ugly head once again last week with the Federal Communications Commission's announcement that it will consider a so-called net neutrality proposal at its October meeting coming up later this month.

So what is net neutrality? Well, at its most basic level, it is simply the idea that internet service providers shouldn't prioritize or block certain internet traffic at the expense of others. Understood in that way, it is a concept that enjoys broad support in both parties. But that is not what we are talking about with the Biden FCC's net neutrality proposal. Like the Obama FCC before it, the Biden FCC wants to assert broad new government powers over the internet using rules-- get this--that were designed for telephone companies and monopolies back during the Great Depression.

This is a quote from FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel last week:

Today, there is no expert agency ensuring that the internet is fast, open and fair.

Proving once again that Democrats' faith in Washington experts is undying and that nothing scares a Democrat more than the thought of some aspect of society not being regulated by the Federal Government.

This is not the first time Democrats have sounded the alarm about the perils that await us if we don't let the Government regulate the internet with a heavy hand. In fact, back in 2015, the Obama FCC actually implemented the regulatory regime the Biden FCC is now considering imposing again. This opened the door to a whole new host of new internet regulations including--including--price regulations.

Unsurprisingly, broadband investment declined as a result. That was a problem for Americans generally who benefit when the United States is at the forefront of internet growth and expansion, and it was particularly bad news for Americans in rural States like my State of South Dakota.

Getting broadband to rural communities is already more challenging than installing broadband in cities or suburbs, and the possibility of heavier regulations act as a further disincentive to expanding business. No big surprise there.

Fast forward to 2017, and the FCC under Chairman Pai voted to repeal--repeal--the heavyhanded internet regulations passed by the Obama FCC. The prospect of this repeal was greeted with near hysteria from Democrats. We were told that internet traffic would slow to a crawl, that innovation would be stifled, that our freedom of speech was threatened, and more. And in the wake of the repeal, none of the things that Democrats predicted came to pass. The internet as we know it not only survived, it thrived. Innovation flourished, the internet remained a vehicle for free and open discourse. And internet speeds not only didn't slow down, they got faster and faster.

During the pandemic, despite the explosive growth of internet usage, American networks had no problem keeping up with demand, delivering the reliable service that Americans have come to expect. Now contrast that with Europe--where internet regulation is much more heavyhanded--where they struggle to deal with increased internet usage. In fact, European service providers slowed internet speeds to maintain connectivity throughout the course of the pandemic. The United States is now a leader in adopting next-generation telecommunications services like 5G and advanced Wi-Fi, while Europe struggles to keep pace. But that may not last if the Biden FCC goes ahead with its net neutrality plans.

As I said, the last time a Democrat-led FCC put heavyhanded internet regulations in place, broadband investment declined. There is a good reason to believe that the same thing would happen this time. There is also substantial reason to be concerned that the Biden FCC's proposed regulatory regime would result in higher internet bills for Americans.

As FCC Commissioner Carr, a Republican appointee who opposes the Democrats' proposal, recently pointed out:

Since 2017, the prices Americans pay for Internet services have decreased on an inflation-adjusted basis. Meanwhile, the prices for utility-regulated services like electricity, water, and gas have increased over two times faster than the prices for Internet services. Monopoly regulations invariably lead to monopoly prices. In addition, Title II regulation opens the door to regulators adding new taxes and fees to consumers' monthly broadband bills.

That is from Brendan Carr's statement.

In addition to higher prices for consumers and decreased broadband investment, another consequence of the Biden's FCC's proposed new regulatory regime would be government interference in internet traffic. Ironically, given Democrats' professed concerns, it is precisely the net neutrality regime they are calling for that could imperil the free and open internet they claim to want.

Under the regulatory regime the Biden FCC wants to impose, the Federal Government would be allowed to block or prioritize internet traffic or otherwise interfere with the free flow of information. Think about that one.

Given, I would add, the Biden administration's demonstrated willingness to use its regulatory power to advance its social and environmental agenda, it is not hard to imagine the Biden administration using this proposed new regulatory power to shape Americans' internet experience for its own ends.

The Biden FCC should be focused on addressing real challenges such as continuing our efforts to close the digital divide and ensuring that every American has access to high-speed broadband; it should not be wasting time and money advancing a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Thanks, in substantial part, to the light-touch regulatory regime currently in place, the internet in the United States is thriving and bringing new benefits to American families and businesses. And if Democrats really want a free and open internet and to keep the United States at the forefront of broadband development, they will oppose the Biden FCC's heavyhanded power grab.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source