[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PRESERVING AN OPEN INTERNET FOR CONSUMERS, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND FREE
SPEECH
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-4
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-602 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia PETE OLSON, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina BILL FLORES, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Chair TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TONY CARDENAS, California
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Witnesses
Denelle Dixon, Chief Operating Officer, Mozilla Corp............. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 166
Ruth Livier, actress, writer, and UCLA doctoral student.......... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Answers to submitted questions............................... 167
Joseph Franell, Chief Executive Officer, Eastern Oregon Telecom.. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Answers to submitted questions............................... 169
Jessica J. Gonzalez, Vice President of Strategy and Senior
Counsel, Free Press and Free Press Action Fund................. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Answers to submitted questions............................... 171
Michael K. Powell, President and Chief Executive Officer, NCTA-
The Internet & Television Association.......................... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Answers to submitted questions............................... 187
Tom Wheeler, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, Senior
Research Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School........................ 71
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Answers to submitted questions............................... 190
Submitted Material
Article of January 24, 2018, ``Net Neutrality Violations: A Brief
History,'' by Timothy Karr, Free Press, submitted by Mr.
Pallone........................................................ 125
Letter of May 28, 2010, from Mr. Pallone to Julius Genachowski,
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr.
Walden......................................................... 128
Letter of June 27, 2017, from A Better Wireless, et al., to Ajit
Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, submitted by
Mr. McNerney................................................... 130
Letter of October 15, 2009, from Hon. Gregory W. Meeks, a Member
of Congress, et al., to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Bilirakis.......... 132
Majority Staff Report of the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Government Affairs, ``Regulating the Internet: How
the White House Bowled Over FCC Independence,'' February 29,
2016, submitted by Mr. Long \1\
Article, ``Broadband groups cut capex despite net neutrality
win,'' by Kiran Stacey, Financial Times, submitted by Mr. Welch 138
Article of January 24, 2019, ``It's Now Clear None of the
Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are Real,'' by Karl
Bode, Motherboard, submitted by Mr. Lujan...................... 140
Report of The Center for Internet and Society, ``Filtering Out
the Bots: What Americans Actually Told the FCC about Net
Neutrality Repeal,'' by Ryan Singel, October 2018, submitted by
Mr. Lujan \2\
Analysis, ``Unique Net Neutrality Comments to the FCC in 2017
from NM District #3,'' submitted by Mr. Lujan \3\
Letter of February 7, 2019, from Jonathan Schwantes, Senior
Policy Counsel, Consumer Reports, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 143
Letter of February 6, 2019, from Kathi Kromer, Associate
Executive Director, Washington Office, American Library
Association, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle 146
Letter of February 7, 2019, from TechFreedom, et al., to Mr.
Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle.................... 149
Article of February 6, 2019, ``Hundreds of Bounty Hunters Had
Access to AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint Customer Location Data for
Years,'' by Joseph Cox, Motherboard, submitted by Mr. Doyle.... 153
----------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190207/108845/
HHRG-116-IF16-20190207-SD009.pdf.
\2\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190207/108845/
HHRG-116-IF16-20190207-SD012.pdf.
\3\ The analysis has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190207/108845/
HHRG-116-IF16-20190207-SD013.pdf.
PRESERVING AN OPEN INTERNET FOR CONSUMERS, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND FREE
SPEECH
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Doyle
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
Loebsack, Veasey, McEachin, Soto, O'Halleran, Eshoo,
Butterfield, Matsui, Welch, Lujan, Schrader, Cardenas, Pallone
(ex officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member), Shimkus,
Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks,
Walberg, Gianforte, and Walden (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Rodgers.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Jennifer
Epperson, FCC Detailee; Evan Gilbert, Press Assistant; Waverly
Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member
Service Coordinator; Jerry Leverich, Counsel; Dan Miller,
Policy Analyst; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel,
Digital Director; Alivia Roberts, Press Assistant; Chloe
Rodriguez, Policy Analyst; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff
Director; Robin Colwell, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications
and Technology; Kristine Fargotstein, Minority Detailee,
Communications and Technology; M. T. Fogarty, Minority Staff
Assistant; Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office
Administrator; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Tim
Kurth, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology.
Mr. Doyle. I think all Members have taken their seats. I
know we are getting used to where we sit right now because we
have done a little switching.
But I want to call the Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology to order. Before we get started, I want to
congratulate Congressman Bob Latta on taking over the ranking
member.
Bob, I look forward to working with you in this Congress to
address our shared interests, and I would also like to
introduce the new members of the committee on the majority side
and welcome them to the subcommittee.
They are Congressman Mark Veasey of Texas, Congressman
Donald McEachin of Virginia, Congressman Darren Soto of
Florida, and Congressman Tom O'Halleran of Arizona.
And we also have some new friends and returning favorites
who have also joined the subcommittee, including Congresswoman
Diana DeGette, who is holding a hearing downstairs and probably
will not make it up here today.
Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Kurt Schrader of Oregon, and
Tony Cardenas of California--I look forward to working with all
of you.
Bob, I will yield to you if you want to introduce your new
Members.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, and Mr. Chairman, I want to
congratulate you on assuming the gavel and I really look
forward to working with you.
As we all know, this is the greatest committee in Congress,
and this is a great subcommittee to be on. So I look forward to
working with you, and we all know that the bipartisanship that
this committee has exhibited through the years is exemplary,
and I think over 94 percent of the bills that went out of the
committee last Congress were bipartisan.
So I look forward to working with you. First, I would like
to introduce two new Members to our subcommittee. First is
Congressman Tim Walberg from Michigan. Tim joined the committee
last Congress, but this is his first term being on this
subcommittee.
So, Tim, we look forward to working with you and, you know,
there is always great cooperation, not just because Tim and I
share a border. He says I protect his southern flank, which is
Ohio. He protects my northern flank in Michigan. So when Ohio
and Michigan work together, we can all work together. So----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doyle. Except on the football field.
Mr. Latta. I also would like to introduce to our--new to
the committee is Greg Gianforte from Montana. He brings
expertise in computer science, electrical engineering, and
technology, and so we welcome him to the committee.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Before we get started, I do want to mention some sad news
that we got this week. We know our dear friend and former
chairman and longtime member of this committee, John Dingell,
is now on hospice care as he is being treated for cancer. We
want to hold John and Debbie Dingell, who is a great member of
this committee, in our thoughts and prayers.
Having said that, I want to welcome everyone to the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology's first hearing
of the 116th Congress.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
First of all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Energy
and Commerce Committee for making me chair of this
subcommittee. I consider it a great honor and a great
responsibility to hold this gavel, and I look forward to
working with all my colleagues on the committee.
I believe we share many of the same goals and values. I
believe in the power of competition to spark innovation, expand
access, and give consumers a better experience at a lower
price.
Today's hearing is on net neutrality. I believe this is one
of the most important digital rights issues we face today. The
internet is certainly one of the most influential inventions
ever, and today it touches almost all aspects of our economy,
culture, and politics.
According to the estimates by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, the digital economy accounts for 6.5 percent of the
total U.S. economy or, roughly, $1.2 trillion a year in GDP.
Last year, the Pai FCC repealed the 2015 Open Internet
Order. Let me be clear. This repeal had far greater impact than
just removing the FCC's net neutrality rules.
It was a step back by the FCC from its role as an agency
that regulates and oversees internet access and a fundamental
shift from all previous FCC Chairs who worked to put in place
enforceable net neutrality rules and preserve the Commission's
vital oversight and consumer protection roles.
Today, the online publication Motherboard is again
reporting that mobile carriers sold access to millions of
consumers' real time locations to bounty hunters and who knows
who else.
Their investigation found that one entity had requested
more than 18,000 data location requests. These allegations are
very troubling and need to be addressed and investigated.
Last year, firefighters in California had their mobile
command center's internet connection slowed down to a snail's
pace because they exceeded their data limit.
Because of the FCC's repeal of the Open Internet Order and
specifically repeal of Sections 201 and 202 of the
Communications Act as well as the general conduct standard, the
firefighters couldn't call the FCC to restore critical access
to their systems.
Instead, they had to call wireless--their wireless company
and pay a representative over the phone to increase their data
plan while in the midst of fighting the largest, most complex
fire in California's history.
In fact, because of the repeal, these practices were
permissible under the FTC's jurisdiction because they were
disclosed in the terms of service.
Now, if we agree that public safety is a priority, we need
to make sure that they are a priority, not just another
subscriber. We not only need rules on the books that protect
and preserve our Nation's digital economy, we need a cop on the
beat and the FCC is the agency that was empowered by Congress
to protect consumers, competition, and innovation--and
innovators' access to the internet.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
Welcome to the Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology's first hearing of the one hundred and sixteenth
congress.
First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues on the
Energy and Commerce for making me the chair of this
subcommittee,.
I consider it a great honor and a great responsibility to
hold this gavel.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on the
committee.
I believe we share many of the same goals and values.
I believe strongly in the power of competition to spark
innovation, expand access, and give consumers a better
experience at a lower price.
Today's hearing is on Net Neutrality. I believe this is one
of the most important digital rights issues we face today.
The internet is certainly one of the most influential
inventions ever, and today it touches almost all aspects of our
economy, culture, and politics.
According to estimates by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
the digital economy accounts for 6.5 percent of the total US
Economy or roughly $1.2 trillion a year in GDP.
Last year, the Pai FCC repealed the 2015 Open Internet
Order.
Let me be clear, this repeal had far greater impact than
just removing the FCC's Net Neutrality rules.
It was a step back, by the FCC, from its role as the agency
that regulates and oversees internet access--and a fundamental
shift from all previous FCC Chairs, who worked to put in place
enforceable Net Neutrality rules and preserve the Commission's
vital oversight and consumer protection roles.
Today, the online publication Motherboard is again
reporting that mobile carriers sold access to millions of
consumers real time locations to bounty hunters and who knows
who else.
Their investigation found that one entity had requested
more than 18,000 data location requests.
These allegations are very troubling and need to be
addressed and investigated.
Last year, firefighters in California had their mobile
command center's internet connection slowed down to a snail's
pace because they had exceeded their data limit.
Because of the FCC's repeal of the Open Internet Order, and
specifically the repeal of sections 201 and 202 of the
Communications Act as well as the general conduct standard, the
Firefighters couldn't call the FCC to restore critical access
to their systems.
Instead, they had to call up their wireless company and pay
a representative over the phone to increase their data plan,
while in the midst of fighting the largest, most complex fire
in California's history!
In fact, because of the repeal, these practices were
permissible under the F-T-C's jurisdiction, because they were
disclosed in the terms of service.
If we agree that public safety is a priority, we need to
make sure that they are a priority, and not just another
subscriber to be nickel and dimed.
We not only need rules on the books that protect and
preserve our Nation's digital economy.
We need a cop on the beat--- and the FCC is the agency that
was empowered by Congress to protect consumers, competition,
and innovators access to the internet.
Thank you all again for being here and I look forward to
the testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Doyle. With that, I would like to yield the remainder
of my time to my colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. I thank the chairman and I congratulate you, Mr.
Doyle, on being the chairman of this great subcommittee and it
is wonderful for the whole committee to be together today and I
can't think of a more important subject to be examining.
I want to reinforce what you just said about what happened
last summer. This is a fire department that is part of my
district in Santa Clara County. Those of you that don't know
the area you know it by the moniker Silicon Valley. These were
Santa Clara County firefighters and they were battling one of
the worst forest fires in the history of the State of
California.
Now, their data speeds were slashed. Now, just picture what
is going on. This is an emergency. This is real red lights and
sirens blaring, people's lives at stake--and they weren't able
to communicate. The firefighter weren't able to communicate
with each other to get the directions they needed to do their
jobs.
Now, if the 2015 open internet rules--they could have
prevented this because if they had--there were specific
exemptions for public safety. Now, I don't take a back seat to
anyone on public safety issues and telecommunications.
Congressman Shimkus and I have been on this for more years
than we want to count. So, you know, what do we want to chalk
this up to? Misbehavior? Bad PR?
Listen, this is the United States of America. We have to
have first rate system that works for everyone and that is why
the 2015 rules--internet rules are so, so important. So that is
why this hearing is so important.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlewoman.
The chairman now recognizes Mr. Latta, the ranking member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and I am
very glad to see that we are starting off with this subject
that has attracted so much attention over the past 15 years.
Despite the long track record on net neutrality, I believe
there is plenty of room for consensus here and there is also
great need for consensus. In my district, as in many others
across the Nation, our constituents want us to focus on getting
broadband out to close the digital divide, and the uncertainty
generated by these years and net neutrality wars is very
unhelpful to that goal.
So I am hopeful that this is the year we can finally come
together on a permanent legislative solution. I would also like
to welcome our witnesses, especially former FCC Chairman
Michael Powell.
As Chairman, he had the distinction of creating a
bipartisan consensus on this subject in 2004. Before internet
freedoms he outlined for consumers--freedom to access the
lawful content of their choice, use applications and devices of
their choice, and receive meaningful information about their
service plans still serve as benchmarks for what we are trying
to accomplish with net neutrality rules.
Since then, there have been several attempts to create
consensus in Congress and I think it would be instructive for
us to go back and consider some of them as potential starting
points for our conversation this year.
To that end, yesterday I introduced a bill that closely
tracks Chairman Waxman's proposed legislation from 2010, the
attempt to add a compromise on this issue from our Democratic
colleagues on this committee.
Like most attempts over the years in Congress and the FCC
alike, the bill focuses on the potential behaviors of concern,
namely, blocking, throttling, and discriminatory practices.
What it does not include is the drastic outlier measure of
reclassifying broadband into Title II, the part of the statute
meant to regulate the monopoly of telephone carriers of the
last century, and to that end, this is Title II.
[Holds up old phone.]
It hearkens back to an era where we have a telephone that
doesn't even have a dial on it. This was used by my ancestors,
and this is what we don't want to go back to.
And the phones weren't all that was heavy about Title II.
Title II carries with it close to 1,000 carrier regulations, a
nightmare of Government micromanagement both for the providers
bringing the power of the internet into our pockets on devices
like these--of course, everyone has on them today--are iPhones
and for their consumers alike.
Reversing the consensus on classification made by Chairmen
Powell, Martin, and Genachowski, the FCC dropped the anvil of
Title II onto broadband providers in 2015. At the time, the FCC
did not forebear from applying over 700 of those regulations of
broadband service, at least temporarily.
But that just begs the question of why anyone still views
Title II as a critical component to net neutrality legislation
instead of complete overkill.
Chairman Waxman recognized 3 years after the first iPhone
was introduced that he didn't need Title II to protect Chairman
Powell's four freedoms and ensure an open internet. We don't
either.
In fact, since the reversal of the 2015 Open Internet
Order, the internet has continued to remain open and free.
Americans have not been restricted from freely searching,
posting, or streaming content.
It is clear that Title II is not needed to protect consumer
access to the internet.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today
and I look forward to moving forward on a long-awaited
legislative compromise.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good morning and welcome to our first subcommittee hearing
of 2019. I'm happy to see my colleague Chairman Doyle starting
off right away with a subject that has attracted so much
attention for the past 15 years. Despite the long track record
on net neutrality, I believe there is plenty of room for
consensus here. And there is also great need for consensus.
In my district as in many others across the Nation, our
constituents want us to focus on getting broadband out there to
close the digital divide. And the uncertainty generated by
these years of net neutrality wars is very unhelpful to that
goal. So, I'm hopeful that this is the year we can finally come
together on a permanent legislative solution.
I'd like to welcome all our witnesses, especially former
FCC Chairman Michael Powell. As Chairman he had the distinction
of creating a bipartisan consensus on this subject in 2004. The
four Internet freedoms he outlined for consumers--freedom to
access the lawful content of their choice, use applications and
devices of their choice, and receive meaningful information
about their service plans--still serve as the benchmark for
what we are trying to accomplish with net neutrality rules.
Since then, there have been several attempts to create
consensus in Congress, and I think it would be instructive for
us to go back and consider some of them as potential starting
points for our conversation this year. To that end, yesterday I
introduced a bill that closely tracks Chairman Waxman's
proposed legislation from 2010, the last attempt at compromise
on this issue from our Democratic colleagues on this committee.
Like most attempts over the years in Congress and the FCC
alike, this bill focuses on the potential behaviors of concern,
namely, blocking, throttling, and discriminatory practices.
What it does not include is the drastic, outlier measure of
reclassifying broadband into Title II, the part of statute
meant to regulate the monopoly telephone carrier of last
century. Title II is from the era of this antique that was used
by my family before telephones even had rotary dials. [Show old
phone.]
And the phones weren't all that was heavy about Title II.
Title II carries with it close to 1,000 common carrier
regulations, a nightmare of government micromanagement, both
for the providers bringing the power of the Internet into our
pockets on devices like these [show iPhone] and for their
customers alike.
Reversing the consensus on classification made by Chairmen
Powell, Martin, and Genachowski, the FCC dropped the anvil of
Title II onto broadband providers in 2015. At the time, the FCC
did forbear from applying over 700 of those regulations to
broadband service, at least temporarily. But that just begs the
question of why anyone still views Title II as a critical
component to net neutrality legislation, instead of complete
overkill.
Chairman Waxman recognized, 3 years after the first iPhone
was introduced, that he didn't need Title II to protect
Chairman Powell's four freedoms and ensure an open internet.
And we don't either.
In fact, since the reversal of the 2015 Open Internet
Order, the internet has continued to remain open and free.
Americans have not been restricted from freely searching,
posting, or streaming content. It's clear that Title II is not
needed to protect consumer access to the internet.
I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses, today,
and as we move forward on a long-awaited legislative
compromise.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, and I want to
thank--first of all, I am glad to see that you're our chair,
but I also want to thank you for all that you have done over
the years on the subject matter of this subcommittee, but
particularly on net neutrality because you were the sponsor of
the CRA Resolution.
Today's hearing examines a communications service that is
essential to consumers and businesses alike. The internet is
indispensable to modern life and a catalyst for American
innovation and social interaction.
Until last year, both Republican- and Democratic-led FCCs
recognized that net neutrality principles were core for
ensuring the internet remained free and open. Until last year,
both Republican and Democratic FCCs believed that when
consumers pay their hard-earned money each month to connect to
the internet they should get access to the entire internet.
And until last year, both Republican and Democratic FCCs
would nod in agreement that your internet service providers
should not be the one deciding what you see, how you see it,
and when you see it.
But then came President Trump and the FCC stepped in--well,
I should say this. Before Trump, the FCC stepped in to stop net
neutrality violations that stifled innovative technologies and
allowed ISPs to pick winners and losers on the internet.
They knew that consumers would lose if the Government stood
by and did nothing, and that is because the history of
broadband is chock full of bad behavior that strong net
neutrality protections like those in FCC's 2015 order were
designed to address.
And I would like to introduce an article for the record
from the Free Press detailing many of those violations with
your permission, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Pallone. But instead of standing with the American
people with the FCC's 2015 order, when President Trump came in
the Trump FCC eliminated commonsense net neutrality protections
under the guise of promoting broadband investment.
While ISPs told the FCC what it wanted to hear, its senior
executives told a different tale to investors. Hindsight tells
us that the ISPs were more honest to Wall Street than the FCC
and despite enormous tax benefits from the GOP tax scam and the
elimination of net neutrality rules, many of the largest ISPs
invested less in broadband than in previous years.
And, again, the Trump FCC ignored the millions of Americans
pleading for strong net neutrality protections. The agency
falsely claimed a flood of pro-net neutrality comments were a
denial of service attack and shortly thereafter it accepted an
onslaught of bogus submissions aimed at skewing the FCC's
Rulemaking against net neutrality, clearly.
Now, I just believe that Chairman Pai's mind was made up
from the beginning and the Trump administration's mind was made
up from the beginning. I often remember listening to TV one
night when the--I forget that guy who was President Trump's
first press secretary--said, ``Oh, don't worry, the FCC is
going to repeal the net neutrality rule.'' Spicer, OK, it was
on Saturday night all the time. And Spicer said, ``Don't
worry''--you know, long before the FCC even took action--``we
are going to repeal net neutrality.''
You know, I was always told that the FCC was supposed to be
an independent Commission and make--and not make up their mind
and not have the administration decide for them, you know,
before they even decided what to do. But that, clearly, wasn't
the case with President Trump.
In the wake of the repeal, the Republican-led Senate passed
a congressional review act resolution rejecting the FCC's
mistake, and 182 Members of the House supported the same. That
was Mike Doyle's resolution in the House.
But Speaker Ryan ignored the public and so the American
people handed control of the House to Democrats in November,
giving us a second chance. Without a change, there is no
backstop to make sure big corporations can't use their power
over the choke points of the internet to undermine and silence
their small competitors or the political opposition.
Consumers don't have anywhere to turn when they are wronged
by these large corporations because the FCC took itself off the
beat entirely. Consumers are left watching the internet slowly
change in front of their eyes.
Research shows many ISPs are throttling streaming video
service or boosting some Web sites over others. Wireless
internet providers charge consumers an HD fee just like your
pay for TV company and this is all happening when ISPs are on
their best behavior because the court is considering whether to
overturn Chairman Pai's order and they know Congress is
watching.
So I shudder to think what plans are being hatched up for
when they think no one is watching. Those plans won't be good
for consumers, competition, or innovation.
Mr. Chairman, until strong open internet protections are
enacted, our only hope is the millions of Americans who are fed
up and will hold Congress accountable for passing strong net
neutrality laws.
And I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner to
return strong safeguards to the internet. And I want to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, because this has always been something that
you care so much about and I know that by having this hearing
today that we are going to move forward to have a free and open
internet again.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
I want to welcome everyone to this first, important hearing
of this subcommittee this Congress.
Today's hearing examines a communications service that is
essential to consumers and businesses alike. The internet is
indispensable to modern life and a catalyst for American
innovation and social interaction.
Until last year, both Republican- and Democratic-led
Federal Communications Commissions recognized that net
neutrality principles were core for ensuring the internet
remained free and open.
Until last year, both Republican and Democratic FCCs
believed that when consumers payed their hard-earned money each
month to connect to the internet, they should get access to the
entire internet.
And until last year, both Republican and Democratic FCCs
would nod in agreement that your internet service provider
(ISP) should not be the one deciding what you see, how you see
it, and when you see it.
The FCC under Republicans and Democrats stepped in to stop
net neutrality violations that stifled innovative technologies
and allowed ISPs to pick winners and losers on the internet.
They knew that consumers would lose if the Government stood by
and did nothing.
After all, the history of broadband is chock-full of bad
behavior that strong net neutrality protections like those in
the FCC's 2015 order were designed address. I'd like to
introduce an article for the record from Free Press, detailing
many of those violations.
Instead of standing with the American people, however, the
Trump FCC eliminated commonsense net neutrality protections
under the guise of promoting broadband investment.
While ISPs told the FCC what it wanted to hear, its senior
executives told a different tale to investors. Hindsight tells
us that the ISPs were more honest to Wall Street than the FCC.
Despite enormous tax benefits from the GOP Tax Scam, and the
elimination of net neutrality rules, many of the largest ISPs
invested less in broadband than in previous years.
The FCC also ignored the millions of Americans pleading for
strong net neutrality protections. The agency falsely claimed a
flood of pro-net neutrality comments was a denial of service
attack. Shortly thereafter, it accepted an onslaught of bogus
submissions aimed at skewing the FCC's rulemaking against net
neutrality. Clearly, Chairman Pai's mind was made up from the
beginning. But while the FCC turned a blind eye to the American
people, Congress, the New York Attorney General's Office, and
the FBI took heed.
In the wake of the repeal, the Republican-led Senate passed
a Congressional Review Act resolution, rejecting the FCC's
mistake. 182 Members of the House supported the same, urging
then Speaker Ryan to hold a vote on the CRA. Speaker Ryan
ignored the public, and so the American people handed control
of the House to Democrats in November, giving us a second
chance.
Without a change, there is no backstop to make sure big
corporations can't use their power over the choke points of the
internet to undermine and silence their small competitors or
the political opposition. Consumers don't have anywhere to turn
when they are wronged by these large corporations because the
FCC took itself off the beat entirely. Consumers are left
watching the internet slowly change in front of their eyes.
Research shows many ISPs are throttling streaming video
service or boosting some Web sites over others. Wireless
internet providers charge consumers an H.D. fee just like your
pay-TV company. And this is all happening when ISPs are on
their best behavior because the court is considering whether to
overturn Chairman Pai's order, and they know Congress is
watching. I shudder to think what plans are being hatched up
for when they think no one is watching. Those plans won't be
good for consumers, competition, or innovation.
Until strong open internet protections are enacted, our
only hope is the millions of Americans who are fed up and will
hold Congress accountable for passing strong net neutrality
laws. I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner to
return strong safeguards to the internet.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the
full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you very much, and congratulations
on taking over the gavel of a really cool subcommittee. I mean,
I chaired this for 6 years. I can tell you it is--well, you
can't pick among your children when you are a chairman or the
top Republican leader on the committee, but this is a pretty
good subcommittee.
So I look forward to continuing the work and I want to
welcome all of our witnesses here. I cannot help myself a bit.
In terms of Presidential pressure on net neutrality, we should
not forget the video that President Obama put out in the middle
of the NPRM that Mr. Wheeler had that I believe caused an
enormous pivot in November of 2014 after the election, pushing
forward toward Title II regulation because I know from meetings
I had prior to that, that was not necessarily the first course
of action that the FCC was headed towards. So I don't know that
he ever made Saturday Night Live, but certainly there was
presidential push to go toward the 2015 Title II.
Look, the internet has been the single most important
driver of economic growth, job creation, and better quality of
life for Americans and people worldwide. It has brought us
together. It has been amazing in terms of the innovation it has
brought in every sector of our lives.
And all of that blossomed under a regime of light touch
regulation, not Title II--not your grandparents' phone there,
or whoever's it is. It was light touch, and entrepreneurs and
innovators in Silicon Valley and everywhere else didn't have to
come to the Government and get permission to do what they did
that gave us what we had.
It was only under the Wheeler regime that we got this heavy
Government approach and ask-the-Government-first idea under
Title II.
I am delighted that my friend Joe Franell could be here
from Eastern Oregon Telecom. He made the long trip from
Hermiston, Oregon, and he has a very important voice in this
debate about Title II and about how we close the digital divide
in rural America.
Now, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
like to throw big rocks at anybody that is big corporation.
Well, you are talking to the small operator here.
Now, in eastern Oregon we might consider him to be a big
operator. But these are the kind of people the ISPs that are
putting things together to close the digital divide in
difficult to serve areas.
And so thanks for being here and I want to welcome the
other witnesses and especially former Chairman Powell will be
here as well. You actually created bipartisan consensus on this
back in 2004 and I think the principles you put forth then
should guide us today. And so I will look forward to your
testimony as well.
And I think we should be able to agree on this committee on
bipartisan solutions we could put in statute to stop bad
behavior by ISPs.
As Mr. Latta outlined, Title II is the outlier in our
debate. It throws away 20 years of bipartisan consensus that
built the modern internet and it replaces it with an authority
that dates back to the early 1900s used to govern monopoly
telephone companies.
It may sound innocuous--Title II--but it gives enormous
power to the Federal Government and unlimited authority to
micromanage every single aspect of a provider's business
including rates. There is nothing neutral about that kind of
authority.
For 15 years, every attempt at legislative compromise from
both sides of the aisle has addressed rules on blocking,
throttling, and discriminatory behavior like paid
prioritization without Title II authority.
But efforts to reach agreement have, unfortunately, failed.
I acknowledge there might have been times when our side should
have accepted some offers, but the same could be true and said
for the other side.
That is why I have introduced the offer I made in 2015,
which codifies the FCC's protection so they are not subject to
changing administrations and Commissions. The bill prohibits
blocking. It prohibits throttling and paid prioritization and
requires that ISPs be transparent in their network management
practices and prices.
This is the offer, by the way, that has been on the table
that preceded Mr. Wheeler's 2015 proposal. If my colleagues
don't agree to this--that that is the right starting point--
then my friend Mr. Latta has introduced legislation drawn
directly from former Chairman Waxman's proposal from 2010 that
he also filed to the FCC as then-Chairman Genachowski was
drawing up the 2010 offer.
Of course, as a former State legislator, I realized that
some of the best ideas actually come from our States, and in
this case, my neighbor to the north, Washington State. My
colleague, Mrs. Rodgers, has a bill that would give you the
Washington State net neutrality rules from 2018.
So it is important to point out that Washington State has a
bicameral legislature in which Democrats control both houses as
well as the governorship.
As a permanent legislative solution, we should make that
our goal to produce in good faith what our colleagues have
talked about all along. So I am once again asking my friends
across the aisle to work with us on a bipartisan solution.
And let me close with this. I want to read from a letter
that is from 2010 and it says, and I quote, ``Classifying
broadband internet access as telecommunications services that
are subject to the provision of Title II of the Communications
Act may have far-reaching implications. ... To reclassify these
services is to create uncertainty--something that is sure to
adversely affect investment decision and job creation, both of
which are in short supply right now. This is a job for
Congress.''
Chairman Pallone, I couldn't agree more with you. This was
your letter from 2010, and I look forward to reaching across
the aisle to find a solution here that will give certainty to
the market and protection to consumers.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Congratulations, Chairman Doyle, on assuming the gavel of
this subcommittee. For my new friends on the subcommittee,
welcome. As a former chair of this subcommittee, I continue to
deeply care about the issues under its jurisdiction, including
the topic of today's hearing.
The fact is, since its creation the internet has been the
single most important driver of economic growth, job creation,
and a better quality of life for all Americans. And I'd like to
point out that the internet is working today, quite well in
fact, despite hyperbolic warnings to the contrary.
How we address the future of the internet will impact
generations of Americans to come and deserves an open and
honest public debate.
I am delighted that my good friend Joe Franell from Eastern
Oregon Telecom could make the long trek from Hermiston, Oregon
to attend this hearing. For me, this debate is very much about
the impact on providers like him who are trying to close the
digital divide. Heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all regulations
hurt small internet service providers like Eastern Oregon
Telecom the most, and this in turn hurts their ability to
expand broadband to underserved communities in rural America.
I'm also pleased Michael Powell, the former Chairman of the
FCC, is here as he created a bipartisan consensus back in 2004.
I also welcome the rest of the panel, and hope you agree the
Powell freedoms outlined 15 years ago are still the best
guideposts for consumers.
Republicans and Democrats actually agree on these key
parameters of a free and open internet. We can agree on a
permanent solution to address blocking, as well as throttling,
and yes even that untested practice known as paid
prioritization.
As Mr. Latta outlined, Title II is the outlier here. It
throws away 20 years of a bipartisan consensus that built the
modern internet and replaces it with authority from the early
1900s used to govern a monopoly provider. Title II sounds
innocuous, but it gives big Government unlimited authority to
micromanage every single aspect of a provider's business, that
includes setting rates. There is nothing neutral about this
kind of authority.
For 15 years, every attempt at legislative compromise from
both sides of the aisle has addressed rules on blocking,
throttling, and discriminatory behavior like paid
prioritization, without Title II authority, but efforts to
reach agreement have failed. I acknowledge, there were offers
our side should have accepted, but in the same manner, I have
been disappointed in the lack of engagement by your side on
potential compromise time and time again.
That's why I have introduced the offer I made in 2015,
which codifies the FCC's protections, so they aren't subject to
changing administrations. The bill prohibits blocking,
throttling, and paid prioritization, and requires that ISPs be
transparent in their network management practices and prices.
If my colleagues don't agree this is the right starting
point, my friend Mr. Latta has introduced legislation drawn
directly from Chairman Waxman's proposal from 2010 that he also
filed with the FCC as then-Chairman Genachowski was drawing up
the 2010 order.
Of course, as a former State legislator, I realize some of
the best ideas come from States, in this case my neighbor to
the north, Washington State. My colleague Ms. Rodgers has a
bill that will give you the Washington State net neutrality
rules from 2018. It is important to point out that Washington
State has a bicameral legislature in which Democrats control
both houses, as well as a Democrat Governor who also happens to
be a former member of this committee.
A permanent, legislative solution produced in good faith
with our Democratic colleagues is the only way to protect
consumers, innovation, and an open internet. I am once again
asking my friends across the aisle, to work with us on a
bipartisan solution.
In closing, I'd like to share a quote:
``Classifying broadband internet access as
telecommunications services that are subject to the provision
of Title II of the Communications Act may have far reaching
implications. ... To reclassify these services is to create
uncertainty--something that is sure to adversely affect
investment decision and job creation, both of which are in
short supply right now.'' The letter would go on to say, ``This
is a job for Congress.''
This was from a 2010 letter written by my friend and
colleague from New Jersey, the new chairman of the committee.
I agree with Chairman Pallone, it's past time for Congress
to act to pass into law bipartisan, permanent net neutrality
rules. We can do this while making sure the internet continues
to flourish under a light touch regulatory regime that will
help us expand broadband access and bridge the digital divide.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
I will remind my friend that the past efforts of both
Republican and Democratic FCC Chairmen to do it in a way that
you describe was struck down by the courts, and the only rule
was the Tom Wheeler rule that was also taken to court, was
upheld by the courts.
Mr. Walden. If the gentleman would yield, since he
referenced----
Mr. Doyle. No. No. We are going to get started now. Thank
you.
The Chair wants to remind all Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements will
be made part of the record.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing and welcome them all to this committee.
First, we have Ms. Denelle Dixon, who is chief operating
officer of Mozilla. Next, we have Ms. Ruth Livier, an actress,
writer, and UCLA doctoral student; Mr. Joseph Franell, a
general manager and CEO of Eastern Oregon Telecom; Ms. Jessica
Gonzalez, vice president of strategy and senior counsel at Free
Press and Free Press Action Fund; former FCC Commissioner
Michael Powell, who is now president and CEO of NCTA. Welcome
back, Commissioner.
And last, but certainly not least, Tom Wheeler, former
Commissioner who--Tom, I know you were before this committee
more than any other FCC Commissioner and you thought you would
never have to come back here, but here you are, and thank you.
Tom is a fellow with the Brookings Institute.
We want to thank all our witnesses for joining us today. We
look forward to your testimony.
At this time, the Chair will now recognize each witness for
5 minutes to provide their opening statement. Before we begin,
in front of our--I want to just talk a little bit about the
lighting systems, for those of you that are new to testifying
here.
In front of you, you will see a series of lights. The light
will initially be green at the start of your opening statement.
It is going to turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining. So
please be prepared to wrap up your testimony at that point, and
when the light turns red, your time has expired.
So with that, Ms. Dixon, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DENELLE DIXON, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, MOZILLA
CORP.; RUTH LIVIER, ACTRESS, WRITER, AND UCLA DOCTORAL STUDENT;
JOSEPH FRANELL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EASTERN OREGON
TELECOM; JESSICA J. GONZALEZ, VICE PRESIDENT OF STRATEGY AND
SENIOR COUNSEL, FREE PRESS AND FREE PRESS ACTION FUND; MICHAEL
K. POWELL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NCTA-THE
INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION; TOM WHEELER, VISITING
FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, HARVARD
KENNEDY SCHOOL
STATEMENT OF DENELLE DIXON
Ms. Dixon. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and
members of the subcommittee, thanks to net neutrality, with the
touch of a button an owner of a small business in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, or in Perrysburg, Ohio, can get on the open web
and instantly reach billions of customers around the world.
She doesn't need to negotiate with multiple ISPs to make
sure none of those customers are blocked from shopping on her
site. She doesn't need to hire an army of lawyers to make sure
that she isn't put in Comcast's or Verizon's slow lane. She
only needs to make sure that she is creating the best product
for her customers.
That is the genius of net neutrality--an open internet
without ISP gatekeepers where the best ideas and businesses can
be seen instantly, and that is what we are here to talk about
today.
My name is Denelle Dixon. I am the chief operating officer
of the Mozilla Corporation. We are the makers of the open
source Firefox browser and other web-based products and
services.
As defenders of the open internet, Mozilla has a long
history of support for net neutrality and we remain as
committed as ever to the strong net neutrality protection and
clear FCC authority.
Given the importance of this issue to internet users all
around the world, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I would like to make three points today.
First, net neutrality is essential for businesses online
and particularly small businesses. We need an internet where
small businesses can flourish by delivering what users want,
finding the gaps in opportunities in the market that aren't
being served, and delivering those.
I am certain that Mozilla would not be here today without
net neutrality, and if you look around the tech industry, this
same origin story is repeated over and over.
Losing net neutrality does not--does more than just lock in
the positions of dominant players. It also stifles the market
of ideas, puts innovation behind a barrier of permission and
negotiation, and places roadblocks in front of diverse
viewpoints and approaches.
Second, while the FCC has worked to repeal protections over
the last 2 years, the case for net neutrality has grown even
stronger. The FCC claimed that repealing net neutrality
wouldn't pose any problems and would instead unlock investment
and competition in the telecom industry.
But here is what we have actually seen over the last 2
years. We have seen Verizon slow connections of California
firefighters as they battled the blaze and research from
Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts
reports providers are slowing internet traffic to and from
popular video streaming services like YouTube and Netflix.
Did the repeal unlock massive ISP investment as promised?
No. The data says that major ISP infrastructure investment has
in fact declined. This shouldn't be surprising because,
remember, after the 2015 rules were adapted major ISP
executives in quarterly earnings calls told their shareholders
that the FCC's actions would not impact their investments.
Similarly, many opponents of net neutrality claim that
competition among internet service providers would be enough to
protect users and small businesses. But competition among ISPs
remains an illusion today. Roughly, half of this country has at
most one option for high-speed access.
And third, we must restore strong net neutrality
protections and clear FCC authority today. There is no time to
waste. We need to protect net neutrality and the clearest path
forward today is to restore the protections of the 2015 order
through litigation.
That is why Mozilla led the effort to file suit against the
FCC in the DC Circuit Court and we were joined by a broad
coalition of public interest organizations, public sector
agencies, and technology companies.
We understand the value of legislative solutions to provide
lasting protections. But any effort must offer at the very
least the protections that are as strong as the 2015 order with
adequate and flexible authority for the FCC to enforce it.
Anything less does a disservice to consumers.
In conclusion, as a business leader I would note how
unfortunate it is to see this issue take on such a partisan
view in DC Polling shows that the broad majority of Americans,
both Republicans and Democrats, support net neutrality.
Promoting a level playing field of competition and
innovation is not a Democratic or a Republican value. It is an
American value.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dixon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Ms. Dixon.
We now recognize Ms. Livier. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF RUTH LIVIER
Ms. Livier. In 2014, I testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on how net neutrality changed my life as a
Hollywood entertainment professional. I shared that the open
internet put worldwide distribution of media content at the
fingertips of independent artists like me.
This gave us the unprecedented opportunity to tell our
stories from our points of view and share them globally without
the financial and corporate gatekeeping roadblocks of
traditional media. It empowered us to define ourselves.
This matters, because the media produced by Hollywood
historically tell an incomplete and unbalanced narrative about
U.S. society. Latinx communities are largely misrepresented,
symbolically annihilated and/or positioned as peripheral
characters in someone else's story.
With net neutrality rules in place to ensure that internet
access service would remain open, with low barriers to entry,
artists could actively participate in balancing Hollywood's
irresponsible exclusions.
Net neutrality is the reason I went from approaching a
traditional media executive for advice on a script I has
written and being told by them, ``Who are you for anyone to
produce your show?'' 2 years later, becoming the first person
to join the Writers Guild of America West via my work in
digital media for a web series that I produced based on that
very same script.
The difference between these two scenarios is--was that
camera equipment was no longer cost prohibitive and the
exciting new frontier of the open internet allowed the rest of
us, regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic standing, to
finally tell our stories without getting discouraged, derailed,
or turned away.
Net neutrality is about ensuring that traditional media's
exclusionary practices are not transferred and amplified by
broadband providers. It is about who has the power to control
narratives and does shape perceptions and perspectives.
This has significant impacts on society. From marginalized
communities, our presentation or lack thereof is--can be a
matter of life or death. When we are dehumanized in the media
it makes it easier for immoral individuals and groups to
justify their targeted aggressions against us.
A neutral internet empowers us to virtually walk arm and
arm with the confidence of knowing that our voices matter and
we are not alone, that we are not invisible, and that our
experiences are not isolated.
In the summer of 2018, for example, a group of Latinx
entertainment media colleagues and I formed a group to rally
against the cruelty of family separations. Because of net
neutrality, we were able to learn about the crisis from a
variety of online sources.
Brave journalists, activists, and whistleblowers exposed
the injustices that were and continue to be perpetrated on
brown men, women, and children at our southern border and
beyond.
The open internet allowed us to organize and to join forces
to push back against this administration's inhumanity. As a
Latina who has grown up in a low-income family where English is
our second language I have firsthand experiences of how much
you have to juggle just to stay afloat and how mentally,
physically, and emotionally exhausting it can be to navigate
daily and persistent forms of oppression.
The system is so relentlessly stacked against you that it
just seems easier to give up, tune out, and put your head down
and believe the myth that there is nothing that we can do--that
that is just the way things are.
But social inequities are social constructs. They have been
structured to serve particular purposes, helping some and
harming many other human beings in very real and very personal
ways.
Net neutrality is a ray of light that can put us on the
path to bridging some of these inequities by affording us the
option to make ourselves visible and to make our voices heard
in the digital spaces.
This policy is also about protecting our ability to have
access to job opportunities, since more and more jobs are being
partially or fully migrated onto the digital space. This is
true for me as an actress.
Some of my jobs now take place in the digital arena. As a
UCLA doctoral student, this is within the area of my research.
Taking a cue from my academic advisor, Dr. Sarah T. Roberts,
and her great groundbreaking work in digital labor, my research
sheds light on the relationship between the exclusionary
structures of traditional media and the exploitation of human
beings who are doing creative work in digital environments.
My ability to do this research would be significantly
hindered without net neutrality, without access to diverse
viewpoints and within such a mediated and corporate-facing
environment.
A few powerful internet service providers should not be
entitled to mediate our voices, to frame discourses in order to
serve their interest nor to decide who or what is worthy of
being visible--and/or invisible in our society or under what
conditions.
Net neutrality impacts human beings in very real ways every
single day. It impacts our ability to participate in society,
to make a living, to connect with our loved ones, to earn an
education, and to collaborate in pushing back against social
inequities.
Market discourse has served the market and are designed to
keep conversations within certain parameters. I am here to
participate in highlighting the human impacts of net neutrality
because things look different from a human perspective.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Livier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
We now recognize Mr. Franell. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH FRANELL
Mr. Franell. Good morning, Chairmen Pallone and Doyle, Vice
Chair Matsui, and Republican leaders Walden and Latta, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
It is an honor to be here and talk about net neutrality and
the consequences of applying Title II to the internet. The
application of Title II as part of net neutrality had a
dramatic chilling effect on rural telecom and the Pacific
Northwest, and I suspect the same could be said of the rest of
the country.
The uncertainty of the regulatory environments, even on
nonregulated telcos and internet service providers like Eastern
Oregon Telecom made investors hesitant to invest in the
telecommunications sector.
Further, the ill-informed public fervor and fear
surrounding the net neutrality subject precluded any objective
discussion of the topic. This resulted in distrust of and anger
towards ISPs like my company that had never manipulated their
networks or internet protocol traffic in any anticompetitive
nature.
It also prompted State legislation forcing net neutrality
practices on local providers who, again, had never violated the
public trust and had no interest in anticompetitive behavior.
All of this took place without the ability to have an
objective discussion about the scope of the problem and how to
address it without harming the internet all because of the
fearmongering by those who didn't fully understand the subject
or had other reasons for advancing Title II application to the
internet.
Yes, I believe Title II had begun to harm the internet in
the U.S. and a reapplications of it has a very real possibility
of resulting in unforeseen and irrevocable damage in the
future.
I applaud your interest in having an objective conversation
about the subject in this hearing today. Since the repeal of
net neutrality, investors have been much more willing and
perhaps eager to invest in rural telecommunications.
Additionally, my company has been able to focus on
continuing to provide exceptional telecommunications and is
currently expanding into other markets that are underserved.
We do this with confidence because we don't have to concern
ourselves with unnecessary regulatory interference and the
draining cost of reporting and compliance.
I believe that Title II does not have to be nor should it
be part of the solution to the problem of bad behavior by a few
internet service providers. Such application of Title II would
not just be damaging but also unnecessary. When I say
unnecessary, I say so because my company does not participate
in the bad behavior that started the net neutrality debate in
the first place.
In fact, I don't know of any rural provider in Oregon who
does. Nevertheless, I do believe that further discussion on the
topic of prioritization of traffic is warranted.
As a society, we apply different values to everything,
sometimes rightly and sometimes not. In fact, I think we would
all agree that as most forms of information--voice, data,
video, et cetera--are now being moved via internet protocol,
some are, clearly, more important than others.
Here are some of my own examples. A long distance call to
911 should take priority over a regular call. If my daughter
was in a car wreck and had a head injury late one night I would
want the digital imaging that needed to be analyzed remotely by
a radiologist or surgeon to take priority over someone else's
online gaming tournament.
Students participating in distance education or online
standardized testing should get priority over those streaming
online movies for entertainment.
Prioritization of traffic becomes a problem only when it is
done to harm or eliminate the competition and there are
consumer protection laws in place that target this type of
behavior. Adding additional layers of regulatory burden is not
the answer.
Instead of adding to that burden, I encourage you to
consider leaving the longstanding Title 1 regulation of the
internet in place, abandon any initiative to reinstate Title II
through legislation, and address the anticompetitive abuses
that everyone fears with light touch surgical precision.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not advocate for
initiatives from this committee specifically designed to
promote competition in the marketplace. Giving consumers
choices for their internet service offers the greatest
mechanism for rewarding the good performer and punishing the
bad performer. If enough customers choose to leave, the bad
performer will either adjust their behavior or go out of
business.
Only robust competition in the marketplace ensures
innovation, lowers prices, and ensures excellent customer
service. A complacent monopoly has no incentive to change.
Robust competition is the answer.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Franell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Ms. Gonzalez, you now have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA J. GONZALEZ
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and full committee
Ranking Member Walden. Calling him out on the way out--excuse
me. Members of the subcommittee, thanks very much for having
me.
I am here today on behalf of Free Press' 1.4 million
members who are calling for reinstatement of the FCC's 2015 net
neutrality rules and the return of the FCC's legal authority to
protect us from ISP discrimination and abuse.
I am also here as a Mexican-American woman from a working
class family. My father grew up in a Los Angeles suburb where
Mexicans were not allowed to live. I understand that millions
of people who came before me, including Members of this House
past and present, have fought against discrimination and for
other causes that enabled me to be here today.
I say this to underscore that what we are doing here really
has impacts on real people's lives. The U.S. Government has a
long history of discrimination and racism--indeed, used the
media system to legitimize the enslavement of black people and
the genocide and displacement of Native peoples.
And although it has taken some steps to reduce racism and
discrimination in certain aspects of American life, like
housing, it has done little to remedy structural racism in the
communications sector.
The FCC's 2015 net neutrality order is one exception. That
order gave the FCC clear authority to prevent and investigate
shady ISP business practices like, but not limited to,
blocking, throttling, and discriminating against lawful
content.
The Trump FCC's 2017 decision to repeal that order was
wildly unpopular. Polls show that 82 percent of Republicans, 90
percent of Democrats, and 85 percent of independents object,
and people of color have been some of the most vocal critics,
in part because we have more at stake.
Never before in history have barriers to entry been lower
for us to reach a large audience with our own stories in our
own words, to start small businesses, to organize for change.
This hits close to home for me because my best friend,
Vanessa, is a blogger and small business owner. While she was
pregnant and in the midst of the Great Recession, she was laid
off from her job, and she began blogging from her apartment in
2010 after her daughter's birth.
It was a labor of love. Her intention was to fill the void
of content designed for and by parents of multiracial children.
She began writing love letters to her daughter to ensure that
the beauty and power of black and brown women were front and
center, even in a world that subjugates us at every turn.
Vanessa's blog, desumama.com, underscores that mothers are
the storytellers, dream keepers, and legacy builders for the
next generation. Today, De Su Mama has a loyal following and is
building understanding across cultures.
It is also a successful business that has helped Vanessa
supplement the family income and supported her journey to home
ownership.
The end of net neutrality means that her voice might be
drowned out by corporate media that can pay more to access her
audience--some of the same corporate media that have failed
spectacularly to represent us.
This could impair her family's livelihood and the reach of
her cultural influence. And Vanessa cares so deeply about this
issue that she actually flew here from Long Beach, California--
she is sitting behind me today--on her own dime to bear witness
to this hearing.
I am not going to look back there. I will get emotional.
But she really believes that this is critical to her business
model and to her ability to spread the word.
So I will get on to the lawyer points. In my testimony, I
go into great detail about how ISPs have abused their power
when net neutrality is not in place. I will give just a few
examples here.
We have seen Comcast secretly block and slow file-sharing
apps. We have seen Metro-PCS announce plans to block streaming
from all providers except for YouTube. AT&T said it would
disable the use of FaceTime over cell connections unless their
customers paid for higher cost options. AT&T, Time Warner
Cable, and Verizon deliberately limited capacity ISP
interconnection points, throttling Netflix, and those are just
a few examples.
And since the 2017 repeal we have seen some seriously
suspect ISP behavior that my colleague, Denelle, already
touched on. But because the FCC has sworn off its authority to
protect broadband consumers it doesn't even have the power to
investigate and look into this.
And the real shame of this whole thing is that net
neutrality was working. Chairman Pai's justification for the
repeal was built on a mountain of lies. Pai promised us that
ISP investment and deployment declined under net neutrality and
would expand following its repeal.
But the numbers are in and that is just not true. I hope
this new Congress seizes the opportunity to right the wrongs of
the Pai FCC and restore fundamental protections to Americans.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gonzalez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Commissioner Powell, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. POWELL
Mr. Powell. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is
always an honor and a privilege to be with you. I also send my
prayers to the Dingells. John Dingell is a dear friend and was
a lion of the legislature, and our thoughts are with him.
To be clear, the virtues of an open internet are simply
unassailable. It has proven to be one of the most democratizing
forces we have ever known, putting the power to innovate in the
hands of billions.
The ISP industry is proud of its role in building that
network and engineering it to be an open platform has been good
for society and it has been good for the bottom line.
That is why we unequivocally support legislative efforts to
codify open internet rules in a manner that preserves the
incentives for investment and dynamic growth.
But to craft rules that maximize public welfare, we must
appreciate the symbiotic nature of the internet ecosystem. Just
as great software depends on great hardware, the internet
depends on an ever-improving network to facilitate cycles of
ever-improving applications.
We all recognize that users need an open internet to
thrive. But we cannot ignore the fact that they also need the
network to continuously innovate and improve.
A startup needs confidence that the network will reach
their customers. Rural communities need networks to reach them
in remote regions. Consumers require high-quality, secure, and
reliable networks, and advanced applications will require even
more powerful infrastructure.
Put simply, the internet is not fully baked. It must
continually innovate and improve, and policy must protect the
conditions that make that possible.
But Title II throws a wrench in the flywheel of innovation.
Dumping a mountain of regulations designed for a different time
for a different network with different economic conditions and
different consumer needs throws off the balance.
Title II is a massive body of economic regulations. It lets
the Government set prices, decide the terms and conditions of
services, and approve new products and services.
Let us be transparent with the American public. A debate
about Title II is not a debate about net neutrality. It is a
debate about whether to regulate the internet as a public
utility with implications that far beyond simply protecting the
internet.
The old and haggard Title II should not be tucked in under
the shimmering cloak of restoring net neutrality protections.
The future of the internet deserves more careful consideration.
Moreover, a bill that includes Title II will rupture any
hope of bipartisan legislation in a divided government,
ensuring that the count--for countless more years we will go by
without the resolution the public deserves.
There is unique common ground on which to build enduring
net neutrality rules and we should seize the opportunity rather
than squander it.
As you consider legislation, I would encourage you to heed
the caution but first do no harm. By almost every measure, the
internet ecosystem has thrived for decades. The internet is the
fastest deploying technology in the history of the world.
It gets better at a relentless and unprecedented pace. It
has been built with trillions of dollars of private capital,
freeing public resources for other pressing societal needs.
Innovation has advanced at a dizzying pace, giving birth to
startups that have grown to become global giants. And against
this positive backdrop there simply is no evidence of
systematic patterns of ISPs undermining the openness of their
networks.
One must rigorously ask with an open mind how will Title II
utility regulation improve on these enviable results and is it
worth risking messing things up by adopting it.
We have compelling evidence that utility regulations will
mess things up. There is a voluminous literature documenting
the negative effects of utility regulation on dynamic
industries. To ignore it is to ignore the hard-won lessons of
history.
But we don't need to spend hours in the library reading
economic articles. We have real-world examples right in front
of us. In Europe, regulators did adopt utility style
regulations and as a result they have achieved substantially
slower speeds and attracted dramatically less investment than
in the United States.
And on our own shores we can see that our utility-based
infrastructures in this Nation are crumbling. The electric
grid, our roads, our airports, and our drinking water have all
earned failing grades due to chronic underinvestment under this
regulatory approach.
Is that truly the model we hope to emulate for the
internet?
In summary, in software programming an infinite loop is
defined as a piece of coding that lacks a functional exit so
that it repeats indefinitely. Net neutrality has been stuck in
that infinite loop for way too long.
It is time for Congress to debug this debate once and for
all and reach a bipartisan solution that protects the open
internet without damaging internet growth.
Thank you, and we stand ready to help you do that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Commissioner Wheeler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM WHEELER
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to begin
by associating myself with my friend, Michael, and his wishes
for the Dingell family. In all the world, there was only one
Big John and he is Mr. Chairman.
One of the things that allows me to reflect on that is that
it seems like I have been before this committee so many times
over the last 40 years, first when I had Michael's role as the
CEO of NCTA, then when I had a similar role in the wireless
industry and then when I had the great privilege of being the
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
But today, I appear before you as an American citizen who
has 40 years of experience dealing and living at the
intersection of new technology and public policy.
The lesson of that is that net neutrality is not a new
concept. Essential networks have always historically been
required to be open. It started back in feudal times when
English common law required that the ferryman had to provide
nondiscriminatory access to haul people across the river.
When the telegraph came along, the first telecommunications
service, in 1860 Congress said it must be nondiscriminatory.
Net neutrality was passed in 1860.
When the railroads became the dominant network, Congress
again stepped up and said open, just, and reasonable, the rules
that have to govern that network and, of course, in the
Communications Act of 1934 openness and just and reasonableness
was applied to the telephone network.
Now, let us be real clear. It was those policies that
created the internet. It was the ability of anyone to access an
open network that gave us ARPANET and AOL and everything else.
The 2015 Open Internet Order extended those enduring
principles to internet service providers while removing
outdated and unnecessary Title II common carrier requirements.
I understand why the ISPs don't like this. They want to be
able to make their own rules. They argue that transmitting
zeroes and ones rather than analog somehow absolves them of the
responsibility to be open and just and reasonable.
That is kind of like saying that electric cars don't have
to obey the speed limit because it was established for gas
vehicles. No, there are enduring principles that apply to
essential networks. Let me quickly address three policy issues
that flow from that.
One, the game is being played that we are dealing with an
information service as opposed to a telecommunications service.
It is clear what that effort is: to shoehorn the ISPs into a
less regulatory structure. It is a phony construction.
Regulating networks like the content they carry is just
like saying that because a road leads to Macy's that the road
ought to be regulated the same way Macy's is. Justice Scalia
said it a lot better when he said there is a difference between
delivering a pizza and making a pizza.
There has been a lot of talk about the second point I would
make about how the Trump FCC presented false evidence that open
internet regulation would hurt investment.
But thirdly, focusing on blocking, throttling, and
prioritization ignores the future and doesn't even protect
today. It doesn't protect today because it says you are free to
discriminate--just don't do it this way.
And worse than that, Michael was right--the cake is not
fully baked. But those three principles apply Netflix concepts
to a dynamic and constantly evolving internet.
Today, the internet is about transporting things. Web 3.0,
which is now upon us, is about a network that orchestrates, not
transports. Today, 4G is about full signal transition. 5G is
about network slicing into pieces.
There must be a general expectation that no matter how
technology develops, the essential networks must be open, just,
and reasonable.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, and let me say both to Mr.
Powell and Mr. Wheeler, I should have referred to both of you
as Chairman, not Commissioner.
Mr. Powell. There are enough chairmen in this room.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doyle. My apologies.
With the conclusion of witness testimony, we are now going
to move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
ask questions of our witnesses. I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
Chairman Wheeler----
Mr. Wheeler. Sir.
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. When the FCC enacted the Open
Internet Order it included the bright line rules we all talked
about--no blocking, no throttling----
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Paid prioritization. But it also
included a general conduct standard, consumer protections, and
Commission oversight of interconnection and zero rating
policies.
Can you briefly, and I would underline briefly, give us
some examples of past problems that necessitated the addition
of these additional provisions in the order.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, you have heard many of them being
discussed in the--in the previous testimony. There is a
historical reality when Comcast tried to block P2P. There is
the experience of Comcast trying to block--not trying but,
indeed, blocking ports into their network.
There is when AT&T and Verizon said they would not allow
Google Wallet on their networks. It is when Verizon said they
would not allow tethering apps on their wallet, so forcing you
to pay $20 for their tethering service.
And it continues, as we have heard multiple times. You, Mr.
Chairman, referenced the Mendocino fire, and what is
significant about the Mendocino fire is not just the impact
that it had on the firefighters, which is significant, but the
impact it had on the people who were suffering as a result and
who suddenly found that they were being throttled and had no
place to go because the FCC had washed their hands.
The study from Northeastern University on throttling, how
Sprint degraded Skype, the whole--and then the whole issue of
the so-called zero rating. There is just a study that just came
out that proves that free is not free.
The interesting thing is that what the study found was that
data rates where zero rating free services are allowed are
actually higher than where they are not allowed, which makes
sense, of course, because somebody has to subsidize what some
folks are getting for free.
I mean, there's a--this is an ongoing how creative can you
be to figure out ways around it.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dixon, your company, Mozilla, has been the lead
plaintiff in suing the FCC and hoping to overturn the Pai FCC's
repeal of the Open Internet Order.
Can you also briefly tell us why you think these
protections are critical for small businesses and innovation,
and do you think that the bright line rules of the open
internet alone are sufficient by themselves?
Ms. Dixon. Thank you. The bright line rules are just three
things we can rattle off very quickly and then ignore the fact
that those bright line rules can be--you can get around those
rules. There are loopholes everywhere.
So they are not sufficient. Governance is incredibly
important in this area and you cannot rely on the FTC consumer
protection because it takes years for those things to correct
harms that occurred years before.
So you have to look at how we can stop the harm from
occurring so that Americans don't have to suffer during that
time, and then we lose years of innovation and opportunity
because net neutrality rules wouldn't have been in place during
that time period.
So we can't actually make up for it by relying on the
consumer protection statutes. So there is a lot in there that
needs to be looked at with respect to it.
I believe very firmly that Mozilla actually wouldn't exist
today if net neutrality hadn't been in place and I want to talk
about that from the small business angle.
We started 17 years ago or so. We did it because Microsoft
had 95, 99 percent of the market share with respect to browsers
and we wanted to give users and opportunity for choice.
And if Microsoft, for example, had been able to negotiate
with ISPs during that time to say, let's just throttle or make
it harder to get access to our download page we wouldn't be
here.
The open internet rules, while they might not have existed
in the order as of 2015, they were status quo. That was how we
operated. That is what the internet was built on.
The openness, the transparency, the standardization, the
requirement that we all work together--that is how we got to
all of this record revenue that folks have today. So small
businesses need an opportunity to participate in that.
Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Tom, I just want to get back to you just for one quick sec.
You know, a lot is talked about Title II, and my friends like
these props of bringing the old phones up from the 1800s.
But Title II had many, many sections to it and there was a
lot of forbearance in your open internet order. Many of the
things that are--concerns that -- rate regulation and others,
they were forebeared, weren't they?
Mr. Wheeler. So I believe that Title II has, like, 45
sections and we forbore, if that's the word, from 27 of them,
and Mr. Latta, I am just--I got to pull this out because--to
say that this is also a Title II phone.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I see my--I don't want to abuse my
time too much because I am hoping other Members don't either.
So with that, I yield to Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. I appreciate the chairman for yielding and,
Chairman Powell, we discussed the four freedoms for internet
consumers that you outlined back in 2004. Your accomplishment
in creating a bipartisan consensus at the Commission looks even
more impressive, given what has happened in later Commissions.
Will you elaborate on the meaning of the first freedom, the
freedom to access the lawful content of a consumer's choice? It
seems to me that we have all agreed since then that nobody
wants ISPs blocking content they don't like.
In your opinion, is there a serious threat to free speech
on the internet today and, if so, where is it coming from?
Mr. Powell. I think that rule was a predecessor to what has
ultimately morphed into the no blocking, no throttling, paid
prioritization concepts. It is important to remember
historically at the time that we were announcing this the
internet was just burgeoning as a commercial service and it was
really important to try to create a set of customer and
corporate expectations about how the engineering aspects of the
internet should evolve.
We did that and I think that proved successful. In fact,
recently Reed Hastings of Netflix said quite squarely in his
own earnings call that he believed that consumer expectation of
net neutrality was so strong even a repeal of rules wouldn't
threaten them as a company and noted that many countries don't
have net neutrality rules which they operate under open
environments quite successfully because of that expectation.
Our rules were intended to generate that expectation at a
time when things were new, and I would highlight so many of the
examples we hear about today, about the flourishing invention
of Mozilla or other products and services all took place during
a period in which there were no net neutrality rules, in which
the fact exists that if you believe ISPs had the incentive and
ability and desire to block content, throttle it, and impose
paid prioritization they were free to do so for over 20 years
with the creation of every product from Google to Uber, and
nonetheless those products thrived and survived.
I think it is a misnomer that ISPs do not have a corporate
self-interest in an open internet. To be blunt, they made a
whole lot of money on an open internet because when you build a
network with some costs you are rewarded by filling that
network with as much content as possible and creating
artificial scarcity. That simply doesn't make economic sense.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. Could I agree with my friend, Mr. Powell?
Mr. Latta. No, not your time.
Mr. Wheeler. OK.
Mr. Latta. Continuing on, Chairman Powell, new applications
are becoming possible with advanced networks such as self-
driving vehicles, remote surgery, and augmented reality. These
will require extremely time-sensitive network management. What
impact would the 2015 FCC rules, if they were restored, have on
these applications?
Mr. Powell. Well, I would like to be really clear,
particularly on behalf of the cable industry. We don't dispute
or dissuade anybody from pursuing strong net neutrality,
codified rules that can be enforced.
The only thing that we have an objection to is the ill-
considered application of Title II. Now, in credit to my
colleague, Tom Wheeler, he was a regulator. He had a different
problem than you have.
He had the problem of finding a source limited authority in
order to embrace the rules after a series of court cases that
questioned whether they were acting beyond the authority that
Congress had ever given them.
This is not a limitation that applies to the United States
Congress whose power is unbound by anything other than the
Constitution. So the restoring of net neutrality is also
restoring a sort of clever parlor trick to give the Commission
FCC jurisdiction where you otherwise did not provide it.
But writing on a blank slate, as you have the power to do,
there is no need to import those steps in order to create
effective rules. And so the restoring of them as is would
create the same problem of unbalancing the flywheels of
innovation I mentioned in my opening statement.
Mr. Latta. Let me just ask you one quick follow-up. You
know, when you worked on the four freedoms how did you get that
consensus at that time?
Mr. Powell. Yes, how does one ever get consensus?
[Laughter.]
Let me--I think what I would tell you is that I think one
of the things we have forgotten as lawyers have taken over the
net neutrality debate. In the early days of the internet open
internet and net neutrality was an engineering principle. It
wasn't a legal principle.
It was the idea that you could use IP protocols and reach
any consumer on any computer, whether it was a Macintosh or a
Windows computer. Didn't matter what devices they use, what
computers they use, and it ensured that it was a network that
nobody centrally controlled, which is true today.
In the phone network it was like a spoke and wheel in which
somebody sat at the center of the network making all command
and control decisions about the flow of traffic.
In the internet world there is no central orchestrator. The
network is owned by no one at its core and it flies around
unfettered by any intervention.
So what we understood was we were trying to give voice in a
regulatory sense to what had already become a pretty rigid
engineering concept and there was pretty universal bipartisan
agreement about that was in fact how the internet worked and
any policy should reflect that.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone,
the full committee chairman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It has been noted, Chairman Wheeler, that you have had the
unique experience of leading both the FCC as well as some of
the industries that now oppose strong net neutrality and, as
you know, when Chairman Pai sought to repeal the 2015 net
neutrality protections, he did so citing the potential for
increased broadband investment and now we hear investment went
down after Chairman Pai's order was adopted.
So I have two questions. The first one is, can you explain
what is going on here? Was the 2015 order as bad for the
internet service providers as they claim?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, I think the evidence of that is no, in a
word, and investment has--investment increased in the 2 years
following the Open Internet Order as opposed to the 2 years
preceding the Open Internet Order.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, let me ask you my second
question. Some internet service providers claim they don't
oppose net neutrality protections that would stop blocking,
throttling, or paid prioritization.
But I worry and I know Chairman Doyle has expressed this
about the threats to an open internet that we haven't
anticipated. Rules like the general conduct standard that you
included in 2015 rules and that Governor Murphy of New Jersey
included in his executive order recently are aimed at providing
a regulator the flexibility to protect consumers from new
threats or unanticipated threats.
With that in mind, why is it important to have strong
Federal protections like the general conduct standard or
protections for interconnection?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman.
You know, the interesting thing is that saying I am for an
open internet--I am just not for the common carrier rules is
kind of like saying I am for justice, just not for the courts
overseeing it.
One of the--the reason that I was saying to Mr. Latta that
I agree with my friend, Michael, and the leadership that he
showed with his four principles, and there is a huge difference
between his four principles as Chairman and the advocacy that
you are hearing today.
The four principles are just that. They are principles.
They are broad. They cover a multitude of topics. Blocking,
throttling, and paid prioritization, that is it. And as I said
in my--in my opening statement, what that means is you are free
to do whatever you want in discriminating so long as you say,
well, it is not blocking, it is not throttling, it is not paid
prioritization.
We do not know what the internet is going to be and we
can't sit here and make Netflix-era decisions that we assume
will apply tomorrow. The nature of the internet has changed
since Michael did his four points and it is going to change
again tomorrow, and our challenge is how do we make sure that
the public interest is represented in that change.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
And I want to ask one more question. Ms. Gonzalez, I am
concerned that the FCC ran a flawed process leading up to the
repeal of net neutrality, specifically by ignoring thousands of
consumer complaints and allowing millions of fake comments with
stolen identities flood the docket and I am worried that the
proceeding is tainted.
So, Ms. Gonzalez, in your view, was the FCC's repeal of net
neutrality tainted and does that put the repeal on shaky
ground, in your opinion?
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, and we actually covered this in our
petition for--our brief in the net neutrality case where we are
a party. The process seemed to be guided by ideology and not
facts right from the outset and in announcing his efforts to
begin the repeal process Chairman Pai said, this is a fight
that I am going to win.
And it appeared that that skewed sort of the approach of
the Commission. You mentioned thousands of potentially
fraudulent comments in the docket that the FCC failed to
investigate and just went ahead and rushed forward to a final
order without truly vetting what was happening in the
democratic process--rulemaking process.
The electronic comment filing system that allows the public
to weigh in went down the same night that John Oliver covered
net neutrality on his--on his show and thousands of net
neutrality complaints that had been filed by consumers with the
net neutrality ombudsperson were not put on the record.
The only reason we ever heard about them was that National
Hispanic Media Coalition filed a FOIA request and analyzed
those documents and found that what they showed was that
people, the public, understand broadband internet access as a
telecommunication service.
So I, too, share your concern that it was a flawed process
and that it puts it on shaky ground.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the full committee
ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
again all the witnesses.
Mr. Franell, according to Ms. Gonzalez's testimony, and I
quote, ``ISPs' own deployment and investment data show that
Title II reinstatement and 2015 net neutrality rules did not
slow down deployments, speed upgrades, or overall investment by
ISPs,'' and she is relying on her own figures or the
organizations' or wherever you got the data.
I am not questioning that, but what I want to know is, Mr.
Franell, from your standpoint as somebody on the ground doing
build out what did you see during this period?
Mr. Franell. Thank you, Congressman Walden.
So, you know, it is interesting because I have read the
U.S. Telecom report on investment and it shows a different or
tells a different story than what I am hearing here today.
So I don't know which set of numbers is right. All I can
talk about is what things look like for Eastern Oregon Telecom
trying to bridge the digital divide, doing the work in these
very remote areas and when I say remote it is a different
definition than what we have in the East, and I grew up a lot
out here. So I know the different between East and West.
And we--you know, we are talking about frontier areas and
how do we serve those folks. And so as the discussion about
applying Title II and net neutrality rules and, again, the
big--the biggest issue for Eastern Oregon Telecom has been
Title II, not fair use of the internet.
Mr. Walden. Why?
Mr. Franell. But I could not get loans from the bank during
the net neutrality debate and during the net neutrality period.
It was only as we started to hear the commitment from the new
FCC to repeal Title II that we started to see the cash open
up----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Franell [continuing]. That availability and, quite
frankly, for more than a year I never got an offer from a
single equity investor. Now I get them weekly almost, and
investment cash flow has been freed up.
So there had--at least from my perspective, there was a
dramatic impact and it has changed.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Chairman Powell--Mr. Powell--a couple of things. One, we
heard how Title II wasn't all that bad because so many of its
provisions were forebeared by the then-Wheeler FCC. Could
another FCC change its mind in terms of what would be forborne
or not?
Mr. Powell. I believe so. It is a discretionary act of the
Commission.
Mr. Walden. Would that require a full rulemaking to
determine that, or could a Chairman do it?
Mr. Powell. I think it would require a full Commission
vote, yes.
Mr. Walden. But they could do it on their own. Does that
create uncertainty going forward?
Mr. Powell. Well, obviously, it does. I mean, I think we
could play a game about how many rules get forborne from. But
what is important to remember is it is not the volume. It is
which rules got forborne and which ones don't.
Rules that didn't get forborne from do allow for lawsuits
and challenges to rate making proceedings. It allows the
Commission to opine on all terms and conditions of service to
determine whether they are, quote, ``just and reasonable.''
Almost all powerful net neutrality--I mean, all powerful
Title II rules are derived from Section 201 and 202, which
remain in force.
Mr. Walden. So would--is it possible under Title II that
phone traffic on the internet could be subject to fees like
USF?
Mr. Powell. Well, in fact, under the USF statutes if you
are a telecommunications service provider it is mandatory under
congressional law that you charge contribution factors to
internet service.
So to put this more simply, consumers on the broadband
internet today or for the last, you know, 20 years have not
seen that morass of phone charges, taxes, and fees that you see
on a typical phone bill.
But once an information service becomes a telecom service,
there is an argument that the statute requires those same fees
and charges go on to an internet bill, which means the
consumer's bill would go up.
Mr. Walden. So one of the issues I know some groups raised
with me last year--I think it was the Realtors--very concerned
about what they saw as paid prioritization net neutrality. But
what they were really talking about was more uncertainness of
some of the search engines and how you could buy rankings. They
were afraid their competitors were being ranked up.
Do you think these net neutrality provisions we are
debating here should apply to the edge providers?
Mr. Powell. Well, I do. I have always been stunned at the
lack of comparison between the alleged behavior of ISPs with
regard to neutrality and the actual demonstrable behavior of
edge providers with regard to the same principles.
It seems to me just this week we learned about Apple
blocking Facebook applications in its store. Just this week we
learned of Twitter blocking speakers who they disagree with.
All those companies have subjective policies that determine who
they allow to speak on their platforms and who don't. Facebook
prioritizes news feeds at its choice. Google has a very
profitable business model of allowing people to pay for who
gets seen in search results higher than others.
It is a hollow promise to consumers to say that we are
going to guarantee a world of neutral access when all the
destinations that you attend are engaging in the very practices
that we say are supposedly so heinous if they are enacted by an
ISP.
So, at best, we are talking--we are having a very
incomplete conversation.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. McNerney from California. Yes.
I thank the chairman and I thank the witnesses for your
testimony this morning. No, the truth is my constituents care
deeply about net neutrality. Just last March, more than 150 of
my constituents attended a town hall meeting to voice their
concerns.
The way the FCC has handled this proceeding makes me
question whether the agency even cared to hear my constituents'
concerns and the concerns of millions of Americans who voiced
their opposition.
When the agency's failure to respond to my repeated
requests regarding fabricated DDOS attacks to its failure to
respond to FOIA requests and its failure to make thousands of
submitted comments part of the record, there are major
questions about how the proceedings were handled.
In fact, FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel has accused her own
agency of hiding information.
Chairman Wheeler, briefly, please, would you make----
Mr. Wheeler. I am hanging around too long.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McNerney. What would you make of how the agency handled
the proceedings and is this any way to run a show?
Mr. Wheeler. No.
Mr. McNerney. That is brief. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McNerney. More than 9.6 million identities were stolen
and used to file fake comments in this proceeding. About 26,000
of those were my constituents' identities. It is my
understanding that these action are now being investigated by
Federal and State law enforcement agencies and it has been
publicly reported that Broadband For America and Free Press
subpoenas are a part of this investigation.
Chairman Powell, what is the NCTA's relationship with
Broadband for America?
Mr. Powell. We are a member of it.
Mr. McNerney. Does Broadband for America still exist?
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Is Broadband for America complying or its
former representatives complying with subpoenas and document
requests for the investigation?
Mr. Powell. Yes, my understanding, they are.
Mr. McNerney. Good. Did the NCTA ever engage Broadband for
America to submit fake comments using stolen identities in
those proceedings?
Mr. Powell. Absolutely not.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, we will be looking into that, Mr.
Powell.
Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Powell, did either of your
organizations' consultants or members pay for fake comments
using stolen identities to be considered for the docket?
Ms. Gonzalez?
Ms. Gonzalez. No, sir. Absolutely not.
Mr. McNerney. Chairman Powell?
Mr. Powell. No, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Gonzalez, my home State of California is prone to a
number of natural disasters from devastating wildfires to
floods and earthquakes. During times of emergency and in the
weeks and months that follow, people immediately rush to the
web to check evacuation routes to see if their loved ones are
safe and to find out if it is even safe to breathe outside.
Ms. Gonzalez, if some information sources are taking
priority because they paid for it and are unrelated to safety
information people are trying to access in these circumstances,
how might people's access to such information be affected?
Ms. Gonzalez. I think, you know, it has long been the
consideration of this committee and the FCC that public safety
is one of if not the most important job that we have to do and
we want to make sure that the Commission has the full authority
to ensure the consumers are protected in those times.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Livier, you gave a few examples of how open access was
critical to establish artistic talent. Was the example list you
gave exhaustive or is it the tip of the iceberg?
Ms. Livier. That is the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. McNerney. OK. And so you could give other examples if
we asked for that?
Ms. Livier. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. OK. I might be asking you to submit a list,
if you would, of examples of that.
Ms. Livier. I would be happy to, yes.
Mr. McNerney. Ms. Dixon, I understand that some smaller
ISPs including Sonic, which serves many of my constituents,
raised concerns in a letter to the FCC that Chairman Pai's
order would threaten their ability to interconnect with the
larger ISPs.
I would like to introduce a letter for the record, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. McNerney. Ms. Dixon, can you explain the risks to
consumers now that the FCC no longer has a framework to address
interconnection complaints?
Ms. Dixon. It just creates the same issue. It puts the
power in the hands of the larger ISPs. It puts the power in
their hands to work with the largest companies on the web, the
largest companies in the world, and leaves all the small
businesses to have to wait and try to get the leftovers in the
back and to go behind it.
The interconnection agreements are a very important part of
what the FCC needs to continue to regulate.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman from the great State of
California.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I want to make sure we recognize Marcia Latta, who is
observing her husband's ascension to the leader of the Telecom
Subcommittee, and he didn't do that--we usually forget our
spouses in public speaking engagements. So I have learned that
that is a bad mistake.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shimkus. Secondly, to the new members of the
subcommittee, this is why this is a great full committee and
this is why this subcommittee--I mean, we have got really very
articulate experts who are trying to wrestle with an issue.
As the chairman of the full committee has reminded me
numerous times, if we want--if--you know, we could have
messaging fights, and we will have those, or we could pass
laws.
And when we were in the majority I learned from that
because when I had to pass things through my subcommittee I had
to reach for that bipartisan compromise if we wanted to pass a
law. If we want to have this fight and pull our hair out--I
taught high school--for a bill to become a law, the President
has to sign it.
He is not going to sign this. So I think what our attempt
is to say is, where do we go to the middle--where do we address
these real problems?
Now, I sympathize a lot with Mr. Franell because I
represent 14,000 square miles in southern Illinois. And Ms.
Dixon, Mozilla is a foundation. Does that mean it is a not-for-
profit?
Ms. Dixon. We are owned by a not-for-profit.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. So a lot of my communication providers
are not-for-profits, just like in districts like Mr. Franell,
where they are--I understand that approach to small business.
Our approach to small business is little, small businesses
in towns that don't even have access yet, and Chairman Wheeler
or Chairman Powell know that I have been focused, throughout my
life, about mapping.
Let us find out where we have service and where we don't.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. And then where do we find out how fast that
service is so that when we have these battles--Anna, do you
want time? OK. I thought you were trying to--I thought you
were--so if we are going to be involved how can we help get
that full build out? It would be helpful to everybody.
So I have always been focused in this debate about how do
you build out. How do you get the fiber into the ground, and I
am not as smart as you all but I know that that's private
sector dollars that do that and there has got to be an
incentive for them to lay the fiber.
And fiber is a lot better than coaxial cable and there is
more information going out. So I would hope and I would plea
that we eventually get through the emotion, which I am not
discounting, and we focus on fixing this problem, because if I
finally get my small businesses connected in Gallatin County--
Old Shawneetown, right--they are going to want to have full
access. But I got to get them access first. Otherwise, it is
kind of a moot point to some of us who represent rural areas.
So I hope--I just hope we get there. You know, we are
having this big fight on border security and one of the
responses is walls, fencing, and some is smart technology.
Now, the southern border, as you probably all know fairly
well, is pretty rural. If you are going to use drones--I mean,
and this the--one of the Democrat responses is let us do smart
technology--let us do drones--let us do technology--let us--
cameras and let us see who is coming.
That will require a lot of investment and a lot of build
out. Would there--should, if there is information of child
trafficking, fentanyl being pushed across the border--is there
any role for anyone to prioritize information?
So if we want our border security guys to go and stop a
coyote bring across child trafficking, and that information is
trying to get to the operation--the tactical operation center--
former military guy like Mr. Powell--should that be
prioritized?
And I guess my time has expired and I don't--it is your
call, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. If Mr. Powell wants to answer that briefly I
will give him the opportunity. But was there a question in
there?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. We need to build more fiber.
Mr. Doyle. Do you guys have to mention the wall at every
hearing?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shimkus. I didn't yesterday.
Mr. Powell. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will just take advantage
of the opportunity to say----
Mr. Doyle. Briefly.
Mr. Powell [continuing]. When I was Chairman I was a huge
champion of public safety, and I think it is a perfect example
of why we should be careful about what we mean about no
prioritization.
There are societal uses that we will all agree should
employ a higher priority over other uses. It is true in every
tangible part of the economy. I don't know why we think it
wouldn't be true in the digital space.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, there is just one thing that you left
out, though.
Mr. Doyle. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. The 2015 rule allowed for that kind of
prioritization. Mr. Shimkus and I started working 20 years ago,
probably longer than that, on public safety issues and we
allowed--we made sure that the 2015 rule allowed for that kind
of prioritization.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the full
committee, Ms. Clarke, 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you--thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
thank the ranking member and I thank all of our expert
panelists for bringing your expertise to the table today, and I
say good afternoon.
I am glad that we are having this hearing and we have
decided to kick it off this week with the hearing on net
neutrality. This issue is a major concern for my constituents
on the State of New York.
In fact, Governor Cuomo signed an executive order to keep
the net neutrality rules in place post-FCC repeal.
Additionally, former New York Attorney General Barbara
Underwood led a lawsuit with 22 other attorney generals to
reinstate the 2015 open internet rules and led an investigation
into fraudulent net neutrality comments.
So along the lines of Mr. McNerney of California, I would
like to just ask a couple of things. Well, first, I want to
highlight a few things--the voices that the FCC ignored in
2017, those like Brooklyn's own Take Shape and Staff Base and
millions of other small businesses across the country whose
existence depends on a free and open internet.
And the irony of millions of Americans that took the time
to write the FCC opposing the repeal of net neutrality and that
literally broke the public comment records doing it, yet their
voices went unheard.
So, Chairman Wheeler, can you explain why so many small
businesses oppose the gutting of the 2015 net neutrality
protections? I think that we need to have that in context and,
you know, even when we talk about rural communities the idea at
the end of the day is to get us to a broadband ubiquity. But
what does this mean for small businesses?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you very much, Ms. Clarke.
If a business cannot get to its consumers it does not have
a business, and the network that connects us all in the 21st
century is the internet.
I remember a time when I was in eastern Kentucky meeting
with coal miners who were learning to code because they had
lost their mining jobs. But I also met with a young man who had
a guitar shop in Pikesville, Kentucky. When the bottom fell out
of the coal economy the bottom fell out of his guitar shop.
But he went on the internet and started selling guitars on
the internet, and he is now a bigger business in Pikesville
than he was when he was not.
If you can't get to your customers you don't have a
business and the internet is how you get to your customers.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
Ms. Livier, your testimony discussed how in your line of
work lots of jobs are being migrated to the digital space and
how this is an opening opportunity for people of color.
How do small companies and entrepreneurs alike end up on
the losing end in the 21st century economy without open
internet protections?
Ms. Livier. First, there is a series of ways in that you
lose out, right. From my experience as an actress and as a
creative person, how are people going to find you online if
somebody has a faster lane than you do? So they are going to
win out in order to, like, reach a client.
I do, for example, voice work and if I recorded on my
laptop at home and I sent it in to my client, but if my
connection is slow then that is going to cause a problem.
So for an independent like me and folks like me it is
really important to have an open internet so that is an even
playing field. Otherwise, we can't--we can't compete. We don't
have the pocketbooks to pay for access and that shouldn't be
the case.
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely. Thank you for your response.
Ms. Gonzalez, anything you would like--you would like to
add on that?
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes. I mean, there is a lot of research out
there, Congresswoman, about how people use the internet and
what even a couple of seconds of delay does--turns people away
to different sites.
So if I am an independent creator or if I am like my
friend, Vanessa, who runs her own blog--she is two rows behind
me with her 9-year-old daughter today--and my site is slightly
slower than other content produced by mainstream media, some of
whom also own the pipes--Comcast owns NBC Universal--they are
producing content that competes with Vanessa's content--she
will tell you herself she can't pay to go faster to access
audience and even a few seconds of delay, people want it now.
We are in a rapid economy, rapid expectations about how we
are delivered our content and it really would hamper
competition and her ability to run her own business, reach an
audience, earn a living.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
Mr. Wheeler, in 2014, interconnection disputes involving
edge providers, backbone companies, and the last-mile ISPs
resulted in Netflix video service being degraded for some--I am
sorry. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke. Didn't realize the time.
Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Olson from the
great State of Texas, 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair. Congratulations on your
having the gavel for the 116th Congress. Here we go again, or
as the New York Yankee sage wisdom of Yogi Berra said, ``deja
vu all over again.''
It doesn't matter if a Democrat is in the White House, a
Republican in the White House, a Democrat Speaker, or
Republican Speaker. We fight, fight, and we fight and do
nothing about net neutrality, and our inaction has forced
agencies like the FCC and the administration to try to fill the
void.
And that is sad because as Chairman Latta mentioned in his
opening statements, we have so much in common--so much common
ground. For example, the title of this hearing, Preserving an
Open Internet for Consumers--yes. Small business--yes--and free
speech--double yes.
And then the spirit of bipartisanship, the donkey and
elephant in the room, Title II, and that is when this whole
thing breaks down because, as Mr. Latta mentioned, Title II is
based on the phone of Alexander Graham Bell right over there.
And, sadly, instead of working together as neighbors and
friends and solve this problem once and for all, we keep going
down this road over and over and over.
My first questions are for you, Mr. Franell, and Chairman
Powell. In you all's testimony--mostly you, Mr. Franell--your
testimony brought an in-depth analysis of how Title II
regulations would harm small ISPs.
I was hoping you could expand on how shifting away from 20
years of previous precedent of being regulated under Title I
would affect small ISPs such as yours.
Mr. Franell. Thank you for the question and, for the
record, I graduated from high school and college in Texas. So
thank you very much for----
Mr. Olson. The stars at night.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Franell. And so the reality of my world is, and Eastern
Oregon Telecom has been around for almost 20 years--in those 20
years we were created to provide advanced telecommunications in
a market where the incumbent was not doing their job and today
that is still true.
So in the markets that we serve, Eastern Oregon Telecom, a
nonregulated competitive carrier who takes no Federal dollars,
no State dollars, is providing 100 meg service or gigabit
service to the communities that we serve while the incumbent is
still struggling to provide ten one.
So we are doing that in an area that on the interstate
takes about an hour to drive going 70 if you are driving the
speed limit, from one end to the other, and crosses into the
Washington border.
We do that with 19 employees. Every dollar that we have
made since we started has been reinvested in the company. There
has not been a single distribution even for taxes to the
owners, of which I am one. So the tax thing is painful, by the
way.
So even as a nonregulated ISP, there are reporting
requirements. I still have to report the 470, 499--all of those
reporting requirements to the FCC that helps with the mapping,
even though it is not accurate.
It is still a problem. You know, we are still doing our
part. I probably am--between the State and the Federal
requirements I probably have a third full time equivalent right
now dedicated to regulatory reporting.
Now, to put that in perspective, every fixed wireless tower
that I put up I can put up and activate for about $10,000 and
each one of those towers can serve a community or about 500
addresses.
So if I am--if I am paying full bore for a third full time
equivalent, that means I am probably not expanding my
infrastructure by some percentage every year. If you add a
layer to that or layers to that, then I can't keep up and I
can't continue to expand the network.
Mr. Olson. So, basically, if it is under Title II your
small business gets hit hard and over time fades away, fades
away, and eventually it is gone?
Mr. Franell. Or, at a bare minimum, is no longer able to
continue to expand and serve unserved or underserved
communities in the rural remote areas of eastern Oregon and
eastern----
Mr. Olson. No new jobs, no new revenue, no new equipment,
no growth, no growth, no growth.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
We now recognize Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking Member
Latta. Really happy that we have got a good team there leading
this committee.
I am a little concerned if I am going to have to keep
following Mr. Olson every time, given that we are up here on
the top. But we have worked together on things and thank you so
much.
Mr. Olson. Stay away from the Army and the Astros and we
will be fine.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes. We are OK with Navy. That is right.
Thank you.
A lot of great people here on the panel--a lot of great
issues that we have discussed. I have worked--I have worked
with a number of folks on the other side of the aisle since I
got on this committee on a number of these issues, and I do
want to thank you, Mr. Franell, for being here because we have
over a hundred companies like yours in the State of Iowa.
My district is about the size of Shimkus', maybe not quite
as big. Walden reminds us all the time that his district is
bigger than my State. So I understand the issues in rural
America.
But I worked with Congressman Walden to try to reduce some
of those regulatory burdens on folks like you when I first got
on this committee 4 years ago. I worked with Congressman Latta
on precision agriculture--I am going to get to that in a
second--and worked with former Congressman Costello on the
mapping--I am going to get to that in a second, too.
I have some faith--how much, I don't know--but some faith
that we can arrive at some kind of bipartisan solutions to
these issues and I am looking over here at Gianforte. He is,
like, why am I not talking about him because we worked together
on EMS issues as well the last Congress, and I appreciate that,
Greg.
I talk all the time about rural broadband. That is my
thing. It has to be given to the people I represent in the 2nd
District of Iowa and, you know, we have got to do everything we
can to make sure that the quality of service is there and we
are able to build out, going forward.
I was going to ask a small business question but that has
kind of been dealt with. I do want to go right to precision
agriculture's growing importance with connectivity in
agriculture, how important--I want to ask Mr. Wheeler this
question.
How important do you think the Open Internet Order
protections are for advancing smart and connected agriculture?
What threats do you see for precision agriculture if these
principles are not in place?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congressman.
You know, it is interesting to watch how technology--and
you watch it far more closely than I do--but how technology has
changed the nature of the agricultural activity and, you know,
the day when you had a GPS to your tractor changed productivity
for agriculture in a huge way.
We are now moving to a period where fifth generation and
next generation broadband services are going to be able to put
out into the field things that we haven't even imagined, any
more than we imagined the GPS to the tractor those years ago.
The reality, however, is that somebody is going to control
whether or not that capability gets to that field and when you
say, well, we are only going to do blocking, throttling, and
prioritization, then you say everything else that I can do to
advantage myself as the provider of the service can be done.
And so what--a key component of the 2015 order was how do
we maintain flexibility to take a look at what happens--what we
don't know is going to happen but we know will happen. That is
an essence of--a key essence of how you deal with maintaining--
not just having an open internet today but maintaining an open
internet tomorrow.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. I want to move on to a mapping
issue. We have got an REC in my district--Chariton Valley Rural
Election Cooperative--and they are trying their best--they have
tried every which way to get the FCC to allow them to provide
broadband service to their service area. But the mapping as it
now exists doesn't allow them because it says that there is a
lot more coverage there than there in fact is.
And as I said, I worked with Ryan Costello on a bill on
that. The FCC is supposed to be coming up with better maps as
we speak. But it depends upon the data that they are using,
obviously.
I guess I want to ask both the former Chairmen, starting
with you, Chairman Powell. How the heck are we going to deal
with this? I mean, Shimkus brought this up. You know, this is
something that we are just fighting with all the time--and
especially to make sure that we get people who want to provide
that service who might not be an incumbent carrier. They are
not even a telco. It is an REC. How do we get to that point?
Mr. Powell. Well, I think you have all been very articulate
about the essential essence and importance of mapping, and I
know you have directed and the Commission is working hard to
improve their map. So, hopefully, we will get an improvement
with that.
Specifically with respect to the circumstances of your
company and constituent, I would recommend to them there is a
process in place at the FCC to challenge and appeal the current
mapping to be able to demonstrate to the Commission that an
area that they show is underserved or unserved is in fact
unserved.
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Mr. Powell. And I am sure that they have been counseled and
are pursuing that process. So I think that is very, very
important to them.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, and I know my time has expired.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for letting me go on.
Mr. Wheeler, if you would get back to us on that other,
appreciate it.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, we were also whispering back and forth
here. We agree.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. How is that for a short answer?
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
We will now recognize Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations,
Mr. Chairman, and I want to congratulate the ranking member as
well, and also thank you for the bold nameplates, because I
have always had a difficult time seeing the nameplates and
identifying the witnesses. So I appreciate that very much.
Again, first, I want to acknowledge that we need to protect
users from any blocking and throttling of service that threaten
freedom of thought and consumer choice on internet services.
At the same time, I do not want to subject the internet
ecosystem to a system of heavy-handed agency control regardless
of the administration in charge. This too will lead to
limitations on consumer choice and limits on broadband
deployment.
Since the 2008-2009 recession, private broadband spending
increased year over year except during the period of time Title
II scheme was in place. And in a October 15th, 2009, letter to
the FCC, 72 Democrat Members agreed that the Commission should,
and I quote, ``carefully consider the full range of potential
consequences that Government action may have on network
investment,'' unquote, and urged against Government regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the October 15th,
2009, letter in to the record.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
I have a couple questions. Mr. Franell, in the absence of a
Federal solution, how does the prospect of State patchwork
legislation impact any interests you may have in expanding
services and creating competition just north of you to
Washington State and beyond?
Mr. Franell. Congressman, thank you for the question.
So we currently do provide internet service across the
river. We serve some wineries so you should come visit, and
some large farms. We also serve a small community that is right
on the river on the Washington side and, you know, any time
there are cross-border jurisdictional differences in
regulations it creates, you know, a layer of, first of all,
uncertainty where, OK, well, what is different in Washington
than in Oregon. Washington has got a net neutrality law. Oregon
has got a net neutrality law. They are different. How do we
manage that now?
It is less of a problem for us because our goal is not
making money by manipulating things. Our goal is to transform
rural eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and perhaps other
areas with broadband and so that is our focus. So, you know,
this other discussion about manipulation and all that, that
doesn't even fit into our culture as a company. But anything
that makes things more complex, you know, it slows us down. It
adds a layer of uncertainty when we are dealing with different
regulatory environments.
And so I would prefer to see a national standard for this
and, again, a light touch. I am not absolutely advocating for
Title II. I think that that is a bad idea.
But legislation from the Federal Government solves this
uncertainty as we look at other States in the West and the
Pacific Northwest and expanding in those areas, knowing what--
that the playing field is the same would provide us a lot of
confidence. Not having that creates uncertainty and makes us
hesitant to expand in those areas. I hope that answered your
question.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you very much for the
input. Also, again, for you, Mr. Franell--for the most part, a
business survives on maintaining a good relationship with its
customers, obviously. How has the public misunderstanding of
the 2015 order impacted the relationship you have with your
customers despite your business not engaging in anticompetitive
acts?
Mr. Franell. It was actually quite disturbing how angry
people got over the topic of net neutrality, and when I talked
about the inability to have a conversation about this that was
rational I started talking early on about some of my concerns
about net neutrality in the local newspaper, in the East
Oregonian, and the feedback was visceral and irrational and I
think it was driven off of fear.
So people were afraid that even though we clearly stated up
front that we don't manipulate traffic, we just--that is not
who we are----
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Mr. Franell [continuing]. That they just were suddenly
fearful and distrustful of all ISPs and somehow it became an
evil entity. And so it was disturbing because our business is
built on relationships.
Mr. Bilirakis. What about now? Are you still getting that
to a certain extent?
Mr. Franell. We will see when I get home after this
hearing.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Good answer. Good answer.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McEachin for 5 minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the leadership that you are demonstrating on this issue and the
leadership that you are providing this committee.
I am going to start off by apologizing to my staff, who
worked so diligently on questions last night. But I am going to
call an audible and go off in a little bit of a different
direction.
Mr. Franell, I am a recovering trial lawyer and----
Mr. Franell. Bless your heart, sir.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you. And as such, I am awfully
impressed by analogies and I am awfully impressed by what I
would call stare decisis, and Mr. Wheeler has taken us back on
a journey of 600 years of common law tradition where he tells
us that the ferryman in England couldn't discriminate as he
took people across the river.
That has a certain appeal to me because at the end of the
day aren't you just a ferryman who is taking me from one part
of the internet to another?
Mr. Franell. Yes, sir, and that is why we don't
discriminate with traffic.
Mr. McEachin. Well, and I heard you give some support for
the notion of a legislative scheme coming from Washington that
ensures that. What would that look like if it is not Title II?
Mr. Franell. Well, and I am not a--I am not an attorney and
I am not a legislator. I am a small businessman.
Mr. McEachin. Well, we forgive you for that.
Mr. Franell. But I--you know, I----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Franell [continuing]. Think that we need to first
define what is our desired end state, and it is a free and open
internet unencumbered by interference, especially
noncompetitive, from any provider whether it be the ISP----
And we focus so much on ISPs but, rightly so, a lot of this
discussion has to revolve around the browsers, the end users,
the edge--you know, those are the folks that today are actually
engaging that more often than the ISP. Most of the ISPs that I
know that is not our business model and so we don't do that.
And so I think we have to figure out a way to address that
issue, to create clear boundaries on behavior, so that when
people in--an end user like myself goes on the internet, I have
confidence that I am going to get where I want to go without
somebody interfering.
Now, I did talk about prioritization, and I think
prioritization is--I shouldn't be deciding on prioritization.
Society should be deciding on prioritization. We have talked
about public safety an awful lot and how they need
prioritization. That is at the heart of the FirstNet network,
that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it
maybe in the--with the big B--I can't remember the amount--
where it is this nationwide interoperable network that provides
prioritization for public safety.
That solves a lot of that problem. But, you know, that is a
national decision. That is not me making that decision,
although I would love to be able to prioritize every 911 call
that goes across a county line and it is a long distance call.
I think that should just always be first.
But, you know, Title II and net neutrality says Joe, you
ought to just stay out of that because somebody is going to
yell at you--somebody is going to get upset with you--you are
going to end up in front of Congress, and here I am.
Mr. McEachin. Mr. Wheeler, I am in my second term in
Congress and new to these discussions. So I urge you and
perhaps your friend, Mr. Powell, to write a book called ``Net
Neutrality for Dummies.'' It should be in a yellow cover and
that sort of thing.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McEachin. But until you get a chance to do that, can
you comment on what Mr. Franell said and tell me where the
pitfalls might be? Or maybe you agree with everything he said.
Mr. Wheeler. So, you know, I think thank goodness for the
Franells and the Eastern Oregon Telecom of the world because
delivering to rural America is essential.
Several things--one, the laundry list that he went through
in terms of the kind of forms he has to file and has to hire
this person to do, most of those are not a result of the Open
Internet Order.
They deal, for instance, with the mapping question that we
all talk about. They deal with other issues that the FCC needs
to collect information on.
Number two, prioritization for public safety activities is
specifically allowed for under the 2015 act, and point three,
sir, it is not just the firefighters or the policemen who ought
to have the--who are affected by the lack of an open internet
but it is also the people who are the victims of those
emergencies who themselves need to get online and are
experiencing the same blocking or throttling realities and, as
a result of the decision of the Trump FCC, have nowhere to go
because that is not an unfair or deceptive act or practice so
long as you say, I am going to be doing that. And so there is
no place to go.
We need to make sure that we have open networks and an open
network includes openness and prioritization for basic and
essential public services.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you. My time has expired and I yield
back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. McEachin, and I apologize for
keep butchering your name. I think I got it right now.
The Chair recognizes--yes, Billy, you are recognized for 5
minutes--the great State of Missouri.
Mr. Long. Am I that forgettable?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doyle. I just couldn't see over there, Billy, you know.
Mr. Long. Yes, I know. I am a little guy.
Well, welcome to this round of Double Jeopardy, and today
in Double Jeopardy, just like all ``Jeopardy'' shows, you need
to form your answer in the form of a question.
So if I were to show you Mike Pence, you would say, ``Who
is the Vice President?'' All right.
Ms. Gonzalez, you are up--first round. Who is this?
Ms. Gonzalez. Who is Mr. Boehner.
Mr. Long. Who--kind of close--Who is Speaker Boehner? Thank
you. And there is $45 for each correct question. I have your--
--
Ms. Gonzalez. All right.
Mr. Long [continuing]. $45 up here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Long. And next we have Mr. Powell. Mr. Wheeler, would
you not bother the witness? I am trying to communicate.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Long. Next, we have Mr. Powell, and Mr. Powell, the
question--or the answer--you need to ask the question but the
answer is----
Mr. Powell. Who is Speaker Pelosi?
Mr. Long. Very good. Very good. You get $45.
And Mr. Wheeler, you are adept at history, as you have
proven here today, and I know that you are a great historian
so----
Mr. Wheeler. I am terrified at the picture that is coming
up.
Mr. Long. I have already given you your $45 as you--as you
were trying to show Mr. Powell there. So I have great faith
that you know the answer to this, and so the question--I guess
this is answer. You are going to ask the question.
Mr. Wheeler. Oh, wait a minute.
Mr. Long. Correct. That is----
Mr. Wheeler. That is John Sherman, is it not? No? Who is
it?
Mr. Long. I will get my $45 back.
Mr. Wheeler. OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Long. No. This is Henry--Speaker, excuse me. I am doing
Ms. Gonzalez's trick. It is, Who is Speaker Henry Thomas
Rainey? He was Speaker of the House when Title II passed
Congress in 1934.
Mr. Wheeler. A wise man.
Mr. Long. And I think even Speaker Rainey would admit that
a bill that he passed should not be governing this century's
internet.
So a question for Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell, if we all agree
that the 21st century Congress should establish basic net
neutrality rules, can't we solve the problem by putting them
under new authority and not use a set of rules passed by the
very distinguished Speaker Rainey?
Mr. Powell. Most certainly. You know, it is a little
frustrating to hear people cite certain virtues of certain
elements of Title II, which certainly could be in some form of
the other written into anything new and organic, without
considering the millions of pages of things that aren't
considered that would also automatically apply.
It is the difference between should you dump them out in
the regulations on a new and emerging service in the hope you
can whittle away at it to make it optimal, or should you write
from a clean sheet of paper up in order to tailor it to the
circumstances that are affecting you.
I have always believed that the internet is so dynamic, so
different, so radically varied from the telephone system that
any thoughtful effort to write regulations with respect to its
oversight should be done from the ground up, not from the
historical mountain down.
And so there are no limits to Congress' power. It can have
rules strong. It can add enforcement strong and it can create
the sufficient amount of nimbleness to address unforeseen
situations.
I think it is a red herring to suggest that only that body
of law affords that possibility of intended----
Mr. Long. Let me move on to another question for you.
Chairman Powell, we have seen a rise in the number of
comments filed in response to policymaking proceedings at the
FCC since your time as Chairman. However, the underpinnings of
the Administrative Procedure Acts, legal--APA legal
requirements involving the FCC's treatment of those comments
remained largely the same as when you were the Chairman.
The APA requires agencies to consider all comments received
but does the APA require the FCC or administrative agency to
verify the identity of a commenter before it can be considered?
And in the spirit of John Dingell, that is a yes or no
answer.
Mr. Powell. No, it does not require that.
Mr. Long. Is the FCC under any legal obligation to adopt--
to adopt identity verification procedures? Yes or no.
Mr. Powell. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Long. If the public had to supply--if the public had to
supply proof of identity before a comment could be considered
with the FCC, could the additional burdens, not to mention
force public be one of the beliefs impacted by the full and
robust public participation of policymaking proceedings that
have enjoyed, and I think that is probably it.
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Mr. Long. OK. Now, in my final 15 seconds here of
``Jeopardy,'' I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
enter into the record a report examining the influence of the
Obama administration over the Wheeler FCC's decision to go down
the path of Title II.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190207/108845/
HHRG-116-IF16-20190207-SD009.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Long. Yield back my 1 second. I did it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Soto, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think we are
developing a consensus that we do need to update the law a
little bit and I am glad to hear at least that much agreement
in the committee.
You know, the Communications Act was from 1934 under
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I won't--I don't have flash cards to
show you all but radio and telephone were the ones that were
covered at the time under Title II--common carrier--and in 1984
Congress did an amazing thing.
We actually added another chapter, Chapter 6, on cable.
That was 10 years before the World Wide Web was even born. Bell
System was broke up at that time.
Macintosh PCs and Dell computers were just launched. Mark
Zuckerberg was born that year. People used pagers and cell
phones the size of bricks, costing thousands of dollars. So I
think we all understand it is time, right. The internet is not
a fad.
The FCC tried to legislate but that is always going to be
ephemeral. It is always going to be ping ponging back and forth
between administrations.
And so I think the most constructive thing we could do with
our time is hear from everybody and develop a new chapter. It
is time for Congress to act. It is time to have a new chapter
covering the internet with new rules for the 21st century.
But I reject this being used as a stall tactic. It is time
for a call for action for it rather than using this to just
have more of the same for the next 2 years in this Congress.
But we need rules of the road for not only ISPs but content
providers and others.
There is a lot of folks that make up the internet and so it
would be great to hear, briefly, one priority from each of you
that--of what should be in that chapter. And keep your remarks
brief or I will, unfortunately, have to cut you off.
We will start with Chairman Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. A referee on the field with the ability to
throw the flag for unjust and unreasonable activities.
Mr. Soto. OK. And Ms. Livier?
Ms. Livier. I am going to piggy back on that and have that
folks need to be held accountable and know that there is going
to be some repercussions if they are not playing fairly.
Mr. Soto. And Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell. I would endorse the original four freedoms that
I sponsor with sufficient flexibility to address unknown
situations in the future.
Mr. Soto. And Ms. Gonzalez?
Ms. Gonzalez. I would support legislation that adopts the
full protections of the 2015 net neutrality order.
Mr. Soto. And Mr. Dixon?
Ms. Dixon. Ms. Dixon.
Mr. Soto. Oh, sorry. Ms. Dixon. I am sorry. That says Mr.
Dixon in our witness list.
Ms. Dixon. That is OK.
Mr. Soto. Ms. Dixon. I am sorry about that.
Ms. Dixon. We would support legislation that has
flexibility for enforcement. The most important thing is making
sure that there is a cop on the beat.
Mr. Soto. And Mr. Franell?
Mr. Franell. Thank you. I would--I would add that all
pieces of the internet be treated equally so, again, not this
myopic focus on the ISP but the whole internet so that the
experience of the end user is equal across the board.
Thank you.
Mr. Soto. OK. Thank you for your input. That is what we are
really here for, to actually use this committee to hear
testimony and develop a new chapter, at least from my opinion,
and I appreciate all of your advice on that as we are looking
forward to working with everybody to develop actually a new
chapter for the internet for the 21st century.
So thank you for that and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and
congratulations on your gavel. I look forward to working with
you this session.
My colleague, Mr. Long, submitted for the record the 2016
Senate report entitled, ``Regulating the Internet: How the
White House Bowled Over FCC Independence.'' This report
documents how FCC staff were working on a net neutrality order
that did not use Title II for consumer broadband right up until
the moment President Obama announced support for Title II.
Chairman Wheeler, it is good to see you again.
Mr. Wheeler. Sir.
Mr. Johnson. Are you enjoying your retirement?
Mr. Wheeler. It is a different life.
Mr. Johnson. It is a different life. Good. Well, you have
stated publicly that Title II is the only legally sustainable
way to protect net neutrality.
Putting aside for the moment the fact that the DC Circuit
gave the FCC a roadmap for adopting net neutrality without
Title II and your lead proposal for open internet regulations
relied on Title I, isn't it true that Congress can create new
authority to protect net neutrality? A simple yes or no would
be helpful.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, I need to also respond to the aspersions
that you have made about me and my decisionmaking.
Mr. Johnson. No, I didn't--I didn't make any aspersions.
Mr. Wheeler. There have been--there have----
Mr. Johnson. I need an answer to the question. We are not
going to debate.
Mr. Wheeler. There have been--there were five hearings over
nine days held by this body--on this issue and did not come
up----
Mr. Johnson. So isn't it true that Congress can create new
authority to protect net neutrality?
Mr. Wheeler. The Congress always has the ability to do
whatever they want. The question is, what are they going to
do----
Mr. Johnson. OK. Good. I appreciate that. That is good for
now. We are done. We are done.
Mr. Wheeler. What is the quality of the----
Mr. Johnson. No, we are done. We are done, Mr. Wheeler. We
are done. I have asked my question to you, so now we are done.
Mr. Franell, your written testimony states that since the
repeal of net neutrality investors have been much more willing
and perhaps eager to invest in rural telecommunications.
As I represent a rural district in eastern and southeastern
Ohio, this is encouraging to hear. So do you think the
broadband market is more competitive or less competitive than
it was 4 years ago?
Mr. Franell. I think today, I think, we are seeing--and I
can speak only to my area so not the whole world broadband
market but the Pacific Northwest--I see more competition, more
robust competition, more effective competition.
And I am part of a group, the Northwest Telecommunications
Association, which is rural competitive carriers so
nonsubsidized non-incumbents, and the work that is being done
by them, competing in markets where, again, the incumbents have
failed to meet the needs of rural markets.
I am seeing more competition now than I was, and it is not
the last 4 years. Again, you know, the cash has only really
freed up over the last, you know, 12 to 18 months. So that's
when we have really seen the market, at least in the Pacific
Northwest, start to really lift again.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Do you have any suggestions for the
committee on how we can continue to improve the ability of ISPs
to provide broadband internet access to rural areas?
Mr. Franell. So--wow, that is a big question and we have a
minute left. So, you know, I would say, first of all, find ways
to encourage competition. Find ways to get the middle mile out
to these rural areas and then the ISPs like mine will take it
from there. It is getting that long haul out into these rural
markets. I mean, it is long distance is what we are talking
about.
Certainty is one of the big things, and so I love the idea
of legislating this instead of being regulatory.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Franell. So if it is regulatory it just--every 4 years
it seems like it changes and that is where the uncertainty
comes in because, you know, we are talking about infrastructure
that we are looking at, you know, a 5- or 10-year ROI
sometimes.
And so to invest that money and not know that I am going to
have certainty--regulatory certainty, that I am going to be
able to actually pay the bills for that is really difficult.
So this is really encouraging to me that we are talking
about legislating to solve this problem. So it's not just a
regulatory thing that changes when the Chair of the FCC
changes. So I hope that answers that.
Mr. Johnson. I appreciate it.
Chairman Powell, what has been the impact on consumers over
the past year of the FCC's restoring the internet freedom
order?
Mr. Powell. Well, I think if anyone fairly goes home and
uses their internet they won't notice any material difference
from any other time they use their internet other than perhaps
to notice that it is a lot faster than it was two or 3, 4 years
ago.
I would also highlight the fact that both the wireless
industry and the cable industry have announced major monumental
investments in new generation of networks. With wireless, you
are hearing about 5G for the first time and new deployment
announcements were made in 2018 and 2019, and at CES this year
the cable industry announced an initiative to move to 10
gigabits per second into the home over the course of the next
several years, which is a tenfold increase of any speed
available today.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. He yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
O'Halleran, for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank you, the
witnesses, today for discussing this issue that I have heard
from so many Arizonans about on a continual basis--an issue
that has tremendous ramifications for economic opportunity and
investment across rural America.
In my district the American people have spoken loudly and
passionately about net neutrality. They have spoken out clearly
and strong, supportive in free and open internet where winners
and losers aren't predetermined and where practices like
blocking and throttling have no place.
I, too, support those principles and know how critical they
are to ensuring every entrepreneur, every small business, every
school and town across rural Arizona and America has a fair
shot at success in competing in today's and tomorrow's global
marketplace.
Hearing from my colleagues here today and across the aisle
as well it seems clear to me that we stand in broader agreement
than what is realized. We agree the internet must be--remain
open--that the rights of consumers be protected and that
innovation and entrepreneurship can thrive.
As has been stated, the question now before us comes down
to what we can do about it. Rural America needs a permanent
enforceable solution. We can't get the investments we need as
long as the courts, other States, and this body all fight over
a patchwork of rules.
And so I think that Mr. Soto here took some of my question
away but I am going to ask Mr. Wheeler and--Chairman Wheeler
and Chairman Powell the same question, and we have a couple of
minutes to get this done.
If we had to waive the many things under Title II, why
can't Congress write a new title? So I want to get right to the
question that was proposed by a couple people up here.
In your experience, how do we stop the creation of a new
title from becoming stalled and how do we prioritize or
identify the pitfalls that we are going to be going through if
we go down that course?
Mr. Wheeler. That is a great question, Congressman. Thank
you.
First of all, we have to agree on what Title II means. To
my friend, Title II is a list of awfuls. To my friend, Jessica,
it is a list of positives.
And we have got to figure out how to do this. On this panel
I might be unique because when I was running the Wireless
Industry Association, my members came to me and said, ``We want
you to go to Congress and have us made common carriers,'' for
precisely the reason that you said. We need uniformity of
rules.
And so this body passed legislation, created Section 332 of
the Communications Act, which made wireless carriers, at their
request, into common carriers. That was my a-ha moment as I was
thinking what do we do on an open internet rule, because after
that happened, two things.
Well, one thing happened was that the rules were
modernized. We went through and did the same kind of
forbearance, OK. You did.
And secondly, there were hundreds of billions of dollars
that were spent after that on the basis of being a common
carrier under Title II and having that kind of certainty, which
the industry sought.
So I think you have put your finger on the key driving
force, which is how do we have a national program and how does
that national program adhere to the kind of concepts that have
always been established in protections of Title II.
Mr. O'Halleran. I want to give Mr. Powell, or Chairman
Powell----
Mr. Powell. I would agree with much of what Mr. Wheeler
said, with a couple of really critical exceptions.
Number one, I would note that he said Congress established
a section making a public determination as to what the
parameters of regulation for the wireless industry, not the FCC
creating it itself out of a patchwork of laws available to it.
Secondly, while wireless telephone service was regulated as
a common carrier, wireless broadband service was not, and the
thing that has driven the explosive growth of wireless in the
last few years is with smart phones, apps, and broadband
connectivity, ask your kids how many telephone calls they make
with their Apple iPhone and you will see the difference.
So I wouldn't facilely assume that Title II is a
competition empowering a regime. In fact, I think it is the
regime favored by monopolists.
Mr. Wheeler. And the reason why nobody wanted----
Mr. O'Halleran. I have to cut you short----
Mr. Wheeler. They didn't know----
Mr. O'Halleran [continuing]. Because I got my 4 seconds to
say the American people, our citizens, have the right to
freedom of speech. They don't have that right if we do not
allow them to have free and open access to these systems.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'Halleran. They have a right to be heard.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to take
a point of personal privilege, first of all, to express my love
and care for John and Debbie Dingell.
John really was the one who gave me the enthusiasm about
fighting to get on this committee and, ultimately, on this
subcommittee when he said--when I asked, as maybe some of you
did, what the jurisdiction was of this committee and he pointed
to a globe and said, it is the entire world.
And Debbie and I serve together well and respect that, and
so I appreciate your opening comments about supporting and
giving prayers to John and Debbie at this time.
Also, congratulations to you as chairman of this
subcommittee and also to my good friend and the border
protector leader, Republican Leader Latta. I am happy to serve
on this subcommittee finally in Congress.
And in that spirit of bipartisanship, I hope today's
hearing provides a good foundation for finding a bipartisan
consensus on net neutrality legislation that, at the very
least, ratchets down.
Mr. Franell, I identify with you a bit. Having had a
firebombing threat, and I take that personally and the FBI,
thankfully, did as well and took action relative to that.
My position, which at this time I didn't serve on this
subcommittee, I wasn't involved in that debate. It is an
emotional issue and I hope we all can ratchet it down.
I stand ready and willing to find a compromise that
protects consumers from anticompetitive harms while not
sacrificing longstanding bipartisan policies that should and
could promote broadband expansion in the rural parts of my
district in southern Michigan, something that remains a
challenge today and which I hope we address in this Congress.
So, Mr. Franell, when it comes down to your business
decisions, which probably mirror a lot of what goes on in my
district as well like investing in expanded broadband access
and upgrading networks to 1G and soon 10G speeds, does the
content preference of a handful of people drive those
investment decisions? So it is broader than that?
Mr. Franell. It is broader than that, and, if I may, I
don't want to lose--please, don't lose sight of the fact that
there are still large swaths of the United States that are
underserved or unserved and so any legislation or regulation
that we put in place together we have to keep in mind the fact
that whatever we do should not impede our ability to expand
into those areas and take care of those folks.
And if I could give one quick----
Mr. Walberg. So is there any reason for you to block,
throttle, or----
Mr. Franell. No. Heavens, no. No. Again, every dollar I
make, I spend on infrastructure. We responded to an RFP to
provide broadband to every address in Wheeler County, Oregon.
Wheeler County is 1,750 square miles. The State of Rhode
Island is 1,214. So it is larger by a chunk than the State of
Rhode Island. Rhode Island has over a million people.
Wheeler County has about 1,400 and so but those folks still
live, work, contribute and trying to access them and provide
broadband to them is only possible if I don't have barriers
that are unnecessary hurdles that I have to jump over. And we
can provide broadband to them. We responded to the RFP. We are
hopeful. So there is hope for that, but----
Mr. Walberg. OK. I hope--I appreciate that and that's based
upon what the customer wants----
Mr. Franell. Yes.
Mr. Walberg [continuing]. What they need and what you are
able to give and based upon some----
Mr. Franell. Absolutely. I have no incentive to throttle,
block, or--that is not the business we are in.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Mr. Powell, when you talk about upgrading the networks to
1G speeds and there are consumer demands for faster internet,
that is mostly driven by evolving more data-demanding
application services, websites, like video applications,
correct?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. It is.
Mr. Walberg. And as the internet matures, is it fair to say
that your member companies are going to need to continue
innovating and finding ways to manage their networks in order
to ensure consumers get the lawful content that they want and
that they can access that content without a noticeable delay?
Mr. Powell. Yes, and your first question, just by way of a
data point, according to Cisco, by 2021 82 percent of all
internet traffic will be video. That is a massive bandwidth--
intensive set of applications and we have to dramatically
increase network capacity.
Mr. Walberg. And that involves a lot of flexibility too,
doesn't it?
Mr. Powell. Absolutely.
Mr. Walberg. Can you reasonably manage your network if
broadband is codified as an information service under Title I
of the Communications Act and is there adequate enforcement to
make sure you are not gaming this exception?
Mr. Powell. We believe so.
Mr. Walberg. So what you are essentially telling me today
is the FCC can protect consumers from blocking, throttling, and
paid prioritization and both ISPs and edge providers will still
be able to manage their networks, innovate, and make up dates
to keep up with consumers if the FCC is given Title 1 authority
with robust enforcement?
Mr. Powell. Yes, and I would add the fact that under Title
1 you also have the additional enforcement capabilities of the
Federal Trade Commission, which remain viable under that regime
but would not be viable under Title II.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes my friend and colleague from
California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an important hearing and I want to thank each one
of the witnesses.
Ms. Dixon, I am so proud to represent Mozilla. They are
headquartered in my congressional district and you gave
excellent testimony, especially about one of the most important
things that happens in Silicon Valley and that is new ideas
being born every single day.
And if they don't have the tools to do that--we represent
the innovation capital of our country. So your testimony is
very powerful.
To Ms. Livier, you just killed it. You really did. I will
tell you, you are--your writing is powerful. Your artistry is
powerful. Your voice is powerful, and amen.
Ms. Livier. Thank you.
Ms. Eshoo. I don't know how you do all the things that you
are doing--an actress, a writer, a UCLA doctoral student. My
goodness.
Jessica, thank you. You are always outstanding, and you
represent a great organization.
Mr. Franell, you are a good man and you are in the struggle
of doing something that really needs to be done and that is
when we have one-third of the American people who either do--
are either underserved or not served at all, you are a hero in
my book. You have a great--he is not here so he is not going to
hear me--your congressman is a terrific representative.
Mr. Franell. Thank you.
Ms. Eshoo. To Michael Powell, I haven't seen you in a long
time. It is great to see you. I wish we agreed with each other.
We don't.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Eshoo. But our friendship is going to survive net
neutrality and to--and both of the former Chairmen, you are
both really distinguished people who have done extraordinary
work in the public sector that isn't always appreciated.
I haven't changed my mind--and this is not a bragging
point, but I am proud of where I am and it is an important
debate. Everyone says that they love the internet--how
important it is.
Where were so many people when 2 years ago this last month
when ripping privacy off of the internet went through here like
a bolt of lightning? Who came in? Were you here, Michael? You
weren't here. Were any of the people that you represent here?
No.
You know, this Title II has just been beaten to a pulp. I
want to read out what applies. You decided, in the audience,
and maybe the American people that are listening in how really
menacing these provisions are.
It prohibits unjust and unreasonable discrimination in
charges, practices, and services. So are we for discrimination?
You know, a lot of references have been made to old laws. You
know what the oldest one is? The Constitution. You know, that
has got so much dust on it maybe we should throw that one out,
too.
Common carriers that violate provisions of Title II are
liable for full damages and attorneys' fees FCC can recover or
order on their behalf. Carriers are liable for actions of
agents when acting within the scope of their employment. What
is so horrible about that?
Provides process for FCC to receive consumer complaints and
assist consumers in working out the issue with the carrier. Oh,
my God. God help us if we help people with their consumer
complaints.
Protect privacy of consumer information and data--boy, that
is really darkly menacing, isn't it? Is it just--I am telling
you, the sky is caving in.
Ensures fair access to poles and conduits--that is a
showstopper, isn't it? Is your heart stopping? Ensures access
to telecommunication services for people with disabilities--you
know, we can't have that. I mean, that is--that is just off the
charts.
Applies certain universal service principles but does not
require Universal Service Fund contributions. You know where
the whole thing rests? It rests around just and reasonable
charges and practices.
It is money. It is money. That is where the whole debate
rests, because on the rest of it no one can hold their head up.
Just as Mr. Franell said, absolutely not--I don't block and
prioritization and all of that.
And, you know, the industry has really behaved themselves
for a while until the court decides what it is going to do.
But you know what? The worst example is public safety. You
know, I mean, it just, like, ripped the veil off of this whole
thing. Firefighters, and someone at the other end saying, you
know what, if you want more service we will charge you more and
you can get it, and people's lives are at stake.
I mean, come on. So, you know, to say that these
provisions--these are the--what I just read are what apply.
There are--the majority of Title II there is forbearance.
So if you don't believe----
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes. You don't believe in what is forborne and
you don't accept this. I don't think these are menacing things
and I think that they are worth fighting for. I really do, and
how this is going to be settled I don't know. But the internet
is an open free accessible internet. I think it is consistent
with our Constitution and the values of the American people.
And I thank the chairman for his forbearance.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has long expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman Mr. Gianforte. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gianforte. From Montana.
Mr. Doyle. From Montana. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for the panel for being here today. I appreciate this
discussion.
The internet as we know it came to be around 1995 and for
20 years it was open and free. It ushered in innovation,
transformed our economy, leading to a new high-tech sector and
good-paying jobs. That open and free internet gave us Amazon,
Facebook, Google, and the company my wife and I started in our
home in Bozeman, Montana.
We had an idea that the internet might actually make it
possible for folks to work anywhere--that the internet might
actually remove geography as a constraint. Our company grew
from that one little room to one of Montana's largest
employers. We have 1,100 employees with an average Montana wage
of almost $90,000 a year.
Our business is just one example of how a free and open
internet created more high-paying American jobs and increased
opportunity and greater prosperity.
In 2015, however, the Obama administration throttled the
free and open internet and with unnecessary and unilateral
regulations. The red tape was a solution looking for a problem.
The internet is a lifeline for our rural communities. It
contributes to our rural economies. It ties together high-tech
and agriculture, education, and health care. One in three
Montanans lacks access to broadband.
Unfortunately, these heavy-handed regulatory approach has
been a challenge for small telecommunications providers in
our--in my district. Even the smallest Federal mandate could
impact our rural providers and their ability to extend their
service to new communities, further exacerbating the digital
divide that we experience in this country.
As I look around this committee today and all of the
testimony, I think we have a lot of agreement. I don't see
anyone who opposes opening the doors of opportunity to
Americans in rural communities and I don't know anyone who
wants to discourage the expansion of broadband into more
communities. And I don't know of anyone here who wants
providers to block or throttle consumers. I think we all agree
on these issues.
But the internet of 2019 is not the rotary phone of 1934
and it shouldn't be treated as such with outdated, heavy-handed
regulations. I came to Washington to solve problems, and that
is what Montanans expect.
The committee should work on a permanent legislative fix to
promote a free and open internet with a light-touch regulatory
framework. Ultimately, Congress can't and shouldn't turn over
authority of unelected bureaucrats who can change how they
treat the internet from administration to administration.
The internet has changed our economy in this country. It
has created jobs, provided better quality of life for many
Americans. We must be cautious about how we approach this, and
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle to find a solution that works for both sides.
So in the little bit of time I have left, Mr. Franell, I
would like to direct a couple of questions to you. You
testified earlier that these Obama-era regulations cut off
access to capital for your business.
Is that correct?
Mr. Franell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gianforte. I would like to have you just highlight for
us, if you would, when a business like yours that is providing
broadband to rural communities does not have access to capital,
what is the impact?
Mr. Franell. Well, for instance, now that capital is freed
up--and I will answer it because now we have capital--there are
three rural communities totaling about 800 or 900 homes to our
east, and they are remote.
They currently are all, by any definition, underserved. Our
plans now--and we have the capital to do it--are to build fiber
to the home in those three communities with no government
subsidies. So that will transform those communities in really
dramatic ways.
I mentioned the Wheeler County RFP that we responded to.
With capital, we have a plan to provide robust--at least 25/3
but in many cases 100-meg--service to every address in Wheeler
County, and by any definition that is a frontier county, one of
the most difficult to get to.
So without that capital, I can't do that. All I can do is
maintain what I have got.
Mr. Gianforte. In these communities are you providing
broadband to schools?
Mr. Franell. We will provide broadband to--yes, it is not
just residential. We do anchor institutions, residential, and
commercial.
Mr. Gianforte. And do you provide broadband to critical
access hospitals in these communities?
Mr. Franell. We do, yes.
Mr. Gianforte. And without capital you are unable to do
that?
Mr. Franell. That is correct.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. I thank you for your testimony, and I
yield back.
Mr. Franell. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Butterfield, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you to all of the witnesses. I am told that the hour is
late and we are going to be having to rush to the floor in just
a few minutes, and so I am going to try to get through this as
quickly as I can.
And I am surprised to know that so many of my colleagues
also represent rural communities, and that is good to know
because I too represent a rural community in eastern North
Carolina. But the word ``last mile'' has not been expressly
mentioned here in this hearing and so I want to put it on the
table and make sure that we are very clear.
We have got to continue to work on the last mile. We have
got to encourage investment. I certainly agree with that and
internet access in rural communities is of paramount
importance.
Too many citizens are without, and they are being
disadvantaged. So let me move to Chairman Powell.
Chairman, you offer clear support for net neutrality rules
including no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization.
We certainly thank you for that, and this tells me that
providers are taking the net neutrality protection very
seriously.
But as you know, net neutrality rules--the 2015 rules--are
being challenged in the courts and they are working their way
through the courts. And so we will have a decision, I suppose,
very soon.
Why are you calling on Congress to step in, considering
that these 2015 rules are being litigated? Why should Congress
step in at this point?
Mr. Powell. Well, thank you for the question. I think that
is a good explanation of why, because this is the fourth time
these rules have gone to court. Each court cycle is 3 years in
length. Whatever happens----
Mr. Butterfield. I am a recovering judge now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Powell. It was good to you.
Mr. Butterfield. Go ahead.
Mr. Powell. You know, even if we get a decision this
summer, there is going to be appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court,
potentially, no matter the result comes out. That is a whole
another year or so before you reach a decision.
If the court reaches a mixed decision and part of it is
upheld and part of it is remand, there's a whole another FCC
regulatory process that could take another year before we even
get a final compilation of those rules.
There comes a point at which it is obvious that the problem
the Commission struggles with is the absence of clear direction
from the people's representatives, and that would bring
finality and moot the court jurisdictional fight and that is
why we call on you.
Mr. Butterfield. What regulatory framework will best assist
in expanding broadband access in rural communities like I
represent?
Mr. Powell. One that is very, very favorable to
incentivizing in investment of private capital because the
fundamental problem of a rural community is it is inherently
uneconomic to serve.
That is, there is either not enough revenue to cover the
cost of deployment or the cost of deployment is too high, based
on the amount of revenue available.
Anything that might raise those costs significantly only
further impedes the ability to meet those remote areas.
Mr. Butterfield. Now, you mentioned the need for stronger
protections for consumers and providers. Do you support
Congress creating these new protections and what types of
proposals would you consider to be strong?
Mr. Powell. I do wholeheartedly. In many ways it is odd for
me to hear people criticizing the bright line rules. I have
watched this issue for 14 years. The movement to bright line
rules was proposed by the most virulent advocates of net
neutrality in order to bring certainty and clarity to what is
covered.
We have evolved with the debate and we fully endorse those
rules that the Commission adopted in 2015, ones that were
adopted in 2010, and we are perfectly willing to work with you
on any new set of rules you might consider.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
Finally, Ms. Gonzalez, thank you for highlighting the
disparities that exist in traditional media for minority
communities. I share those concerns. Can you tell me the effect
that net neutrality violations like blocking and throttling
might have on minority communities? And you have a minute to do
that.
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for the question.
You know, I think traditionally we have not had a voice in
the media in the same way that white folks have. The open
internet has democratized not only our access to find an
audience, to create small businesses, to make sure that we are
able to tell our own stories in our own words.
And so if there is blocking or throttling that would lessen
our access to having our stories told in the American fabric
that has otherwise been defined by mainstream media
gatekeepers.
Mr. Butterfield. So are you saying that it would
disproportionately affect minority communities or----
Ms. Gonzalez. I would say yes. Yes, because we have had
less access to mainstream media and the access to the internet
to tell our stories has been critically important to change the
narrative and invite people to understand who we are.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you for your passion. I support you
completely.
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 3
seconds.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Flores, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing and appreciate the witnesses for joining us today.
I think I am picking up a consensus that Congress needs to
act, that it needs to develop a new section to prohibit
throttling, blocking, and discrimination in the internet and I
think that we can find a way to do that and do it in a way that
does--keeps the FCC out of the litigation box, if you will.
That said, my concern about the way Title X has been
attempted to be used in the past is that it doesn't have
anything to do with net neutrality and so it is not an
effective tool for that purpose. That is the reason Congress
needs to act.
So let us have some questions about Title II just so we can
get an idea what could go wrong if you had another FCC that
wanted to try to go further than even the 2015 FCC.
So, Chairman Powell, could you confirm whether Title II
could lead to the following? The Government setting prices.
Mr. Powell. Yes, that is possible.
Mr. Flores. The Government determining what services ISPs
can offer consumers and whether and how they are bundled.
Mr. Powell. That is also possible.
Mr. Flores. That the Government could be directing where
ISPs put their investments and how much they should earn.
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK. That the Government can dictate how parts
of the internet should be interconnected and on what terms?
Mr. Powell. Most definitely.
Mr. Flores. OK. And then the Government requiring ISPs to
share their networks that they built with private capital?
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK. And then lastly, and this is a little bit
of a wild card, could it be used--we are all excited about
potential of 5G and I know we are talking wireless versus
wired, but is there any way that Title II could be used to
inhibit the effective and efficient role out of 5G?
Mr. Powell. Well, as we said, if 5G is a telecommunication
service not only the voice component of it but the data
component of it, then it would--it would suffer from the same
restrictions that we have talked about all afternoon.
Mr. Flores. I look at 5G as a dynamic information service
and communications is only a small part of it.
Mr. Franell, like you, I represent several rural counties
in Texas and I am very concerned about trying to make sure that
those rural counties have the opportunity to move to the
dynamic side of the digital divide.
And you discuss in your testimony how every dollar that
goes to regulation is a dollar that doesn't go into new
broadband infrastructure. Don't these kinds of onerous
regulations in Title II crowd out competition and force smaller
operators out of business?
Mr. Franell. Yes. I think--and so I have--I have specific
concerns about Title II, and if you will bear with me let me
list them real quick.
Mr. Flores. Be brief.
Mr. Franell. Real quick.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Mr. Franell. First one is determining price, and the cost
to build the infrastructure and deliver broadband varies wildly
based on location.
Mr. Flores. Correct.
Mr. Franell. And so price--determining price can be
catastrophic for rural broadband. The second thing is taxation
and fees on broadband, and if you were to apply State Universal
Service Fund of Oregon, Federal Universal Service Fund, and
then franchise fees to broadband because applying Title II and
removing that exemption you could end up with a 20 to 30
percent increase in end user broadband costs.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Mr. Franell. With no productive outcome.
Mr. Flores. That is another----
Mr. Franell. Those are the things that concern me about
Title II.
Mr. Flores. OK. OK. That is the reason Congress needs to
come up with a new title to deal with a new area of technology.
My friend, Mr. Shimkus, ran out of time and I heard
Chairman Wheeler and Chairman Powell answer this question that
he had about prioritizing internet traffic to protect our
borders.
I just wanted to see if the rest of the panel agreed.
Should--Ms. Dixon, should internet traffic be prioritized to
protect our border?
Ms. Dixon. We already have an exception in the 2015 order
with respect to public safety.
Mr. Flores. So that would be a yes. OK.
Ms. Livier?
Ms. Livier. I echo her response.
Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Franell?
Mr. Franell. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK. Ms. Gonzalez?
Ms. Gonzalez. No.
Mr. Flores. OK. If not, why? Quickly.
Ms. Gonzalez. I don't want to construct any more walls on
our border.
Mr. Flores. OK.
Ms. Gonzalez. I just am morally opposed to that.
Mr. Flores. Gotcha. OK.
And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to--there was a
comment made in the testimony both verbal and written that says
that--that says to the extent that Mozilla would not exist
today without net neutrality. I want to give you some dates,
for the record.
The first version of Phoenix, which ultimately became
Firefox, rolled out in 2002. Firefox 1.0 rolled out in 2004.
The FCC open internet rule was in effect--was rolled out in
February of 2015. It became effective in June of 2015. So
Mozilla prospered before net neutrality was in place.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of our
subcommittee, Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all the
witnesses. I know it has been a long time sitting there.
I know many issues have been covered today and I--one of
the issues that I want to concern ourselves with as we continue
to grapple with network security in the current next-generation
networks and the issue has even gained more notoriety because
of the potential intelligence threats posed by Huawei and ZTE.
Now, these companies have provided access to inexpensive
and readily available networking equipment to carriers in the
U.S. and around the world, and as many of you know, the FCC is
currently considering how to balance its universal service
mandate with a need to ensure our communication networks are
secured from the threat of foreign actors.
Now, in the larger conversation surrounding net neutrality,
broadband expansion, and next-generation networks, how should
we balance these security concerns?
Now, I expect the Chairmen would have some things to say
about it, but I was wondering if anyone else on the panel
wanted to start.
OK. Mr.--Chairman Powell, would you like to say something?
Mr. Powell. Yes, Congresswoman. Thank you.
We have to put front and center concerns--increasing
concerns about supply chain security and it needs to be
designed from the beginning up. You know, Congress has
addressed supply chain issues recently in the National Defense
Authorization Act, which we support, and DHS recently launched
a supply chain risk management effort, which NCTA members
actively participate in.
So we think this is an extraordinarily important activity
and we remain committed and highly focused on these issues.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Chairman Wheeler?
Mr. Wheeler. History is clear that networks are attack
vectors and we should expect that the network of the 21st
century is an attack vector for cyberattacks.
The question is whether we are going to sit back and play
whack-a-mole in response to those attacks or whether we are
going to get in front of them.
Ms. Matsui. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. The--Mike just talked about the supply chain.
As we left the Commission, we put out a report on the
importance of supply chain cyber management to networks that
the Trump FCC then pulled.
The Trump FCC has repeatedly said they don't think they
have any jurisdiction over the security of the network they
have been entrusted to oversee. They pulled the requirements
that we put in place for 5G cybersecurity and what we are in
the process of blowing is the opportunity to deal with cyber as
a forethought rather than as an afterthought.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
You know, I mentioned here as part of this the universal
service mandate and I know a lot of people probably think this
is boring but it really isn't. The contribution reform
regarding the Universal Service Fund--I think in 2006 this
committee considered an effort aimed to ensure a stable
contribution base for universal service.
Universal Service Fund codified the belief that all
Americans should have access to advanced communication services
and rural customers should have access to reasonably comparable
services at reasonably comparable rates.
Now, contributions to the Federal and universal service
support mechanisms are currently based on a percentage of
carriers, interstate, and international end user
telecommunications revenues.
A necessary part of this discussion surrounding broadband
classification is the issue of contribution reform. In the
first quarter of 2019 the contribution factor is 20 percent and
that number may well continue to climb.
Thirteen years ago the committee considered several
different methodologies for the FCC to use when assessing
universal service contributions. Mindful we should not make
broadband access less affordable, but do you have any
suggestions on how to ensure the long-term stability of the
Universal Service Fund? And we don't have much time but you
might comment on it.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. You need to expand the base. You cannot
rely on a shrinking ice cube.
Ms. Matsui. Absolutely. But we seem to kick the ice cube
down the road.
Mr. Wheeler. But every time--every time you want to talk
about expanding the base you hear what we hear today--oh, that
is going to increase costs for this broadband service or that.
We have--we have heard today the importance of delivering to
Wheeler County--boy, I like that--and to rural America.
And we have also heard but let us don't raise the money to
support that.
Ms. Matsui. Right. OK.
Mr. Wheeler. That is the conflict and, again, it falls----
Ms. Matsui. Well, this is a central----
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired. We are going
to try to get this in before votes and we still have four more
witnesses. So I thank the gentlelady for her patience.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the panel. A big concern I have no matter what we do is
to get broadband built out on rural areas. You just mentioned
that, Mr. Wheeler.
And Mr. Franell, I congratulate you. I live in a rural part
of Vermont--eight-mile dirt road--and we have high speed
internet and it is a local small company, nonprofit that
somehow figured out to do what the big telecoms haven't done
and listening to you it sounds like you have done that as well.
So my hat is off to you.
But on this question of repealing the net neutrality rules
that were part of the Wheeler FCC, one of the arguments that
was made is that if we got rid of the heavy hand of regulation
that it would result in an expansive capital-intensive
commitment by our major telecom carriers that would build out
into rural America.
And it turns out that is a fairy tale. I mean, Chairman
Pai--because this was a question I think I asked him--he said
without the overhang of heavy-handed regulation--and I don't
know where this heavy-handed deal is coming from because
everyone who is complaining about the heavy hand says they are
for what the light hand accomplished.
So there is a lot of rhetoric here. But what Chairman Pai
said quite specifically was without the overhang of heavy-
handed regulations, companies will spend more building the
next-generation networks.
As those networks expand, many more Americans, especially
low-income rural and urban Americans, will get high-speed
internet access for the first time. And it turns out my
skepticism of that assertion has been proven right.
Today, the Financial Times reported that the big four U.S.
broadband companies invested less in capital projects last year
than they did in 2017, which is when the Wheeler net neutrality
rules were still in place, which totally undermines one of the
rationales for repealing the net neutrality rules.
And it also showed--that article--that the four companies
collectively undertook less capital spending in 2018, and that
is the first time there has been a drop in 3 years when the net
neutrality rules were first put in place.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the Financial Times
article published today in the record, if I may.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so moved.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Welch. All right. So we all know about the inadequacy
in rural America. Twenty-four million Americans lack access to
fixed broadband at high-speed internet speeds. Thirty-one
percent of Americans in rural areas lack access to broadband.
Forty-four million Americans lack access to both fixed
broadband at 25/3 speeds and mobile LTE broadband at 10/3
speeds.
I mean, we have--we are on the verge of abandoning rural
America and that has got to change, and it is not just
regulations. This is about investment. Somehow you have figured
out how to do it. ECFiber has figured out how to do it. My
view, the big four don't particularly care to do it. There is
not a lot of money to be made for them.
So now we have a situation where we don't have the
protection of the net neutrality rules in the Wheeler
administration in rural America and we are not getting the
build out. And I will just ask you, Mr. Wheeler, are you
surprised by the earnings report that indicate no increase in
capital expenditures since the net neutrality rules came off
the books?
Mr. Wheeler. No, sir.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Powell, can you explain the decrease in
capital expenditures last year compared to the previous 3
years?
Mr. Powell. I can. The headline numbers in those reports
are wrong because capital expenditure in net involves more than
investments just in networks. If you look carefully at the
earnings reports an enormous amount of that capital reduction
was due to the video business and the CPE business, not the
network connectivity business.
If you sorted out those decreases for loss of video
investment because of competition you would find that the
increase--there has been an increase in investment in networks.
Mr. Welch. OK. I don't want to dwell on this but I don't
understand a word you just said.
[Laughter.]
No, and I don't mean that--I really don't understand it and
maybe I have to be an accountant. But bottom line, these are
year-over-year numbers and what I am seeing is that whatever
that explanation is, there is not more internet access in rural
America. I mean, we need more people like your company.
Ms. Gonzalez, would antitrust law prevent an ISP from
blocking access to a lawful website that presents an opinion
the ISP does not want?
Ms. Gonzalez. No.
Mr. Welch. Would antitrust law address the situation, Ms.
Gonzalez, where an ISP slowed down lawful internet traffic
after it was pressured to do so by a political figure?
Ms. Gonzalez. No.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Welch. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
Mexico, Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, we know that this definitely matters.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be so much interest, not just here in
this committee room but with the millions of people across
America who responded to this order.
I know that we are still trying to make sense of the number
of bots and trolls that are part of that filing. But
nonetheless, I hope that Chairman Pai allows us to make sense
of who is a real person and which part of those finally should
be taken out. I hoped that we would all agree with that.
The foundation of a record in order to make a decision is
only as solid as the quality of the information that has been
collected. I think that as Chairman--I would hope, Chairman
Powell and Chairman Wheeler, you would both agreed with that,
with the importance of what happens at the Commission.
Now, when Chairman Pai announced that he was repealing the
2015 Open Internet Order, he said, and I quote, ``Many more
Americans, especially low-income rural and urban Americans,
will get high-speed internet access for the first time and more
Americans generally will benefit from faster and better
broadband.''
Mr. Wheeler, the question that I have there is, is this
true? Does the repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order mean that
more New Mexicans will have access to high-speed broadband and
how does the repeal of that order meaningfully change the
economics of building out in rural and tribal communities?
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Lujan, this self-serving economics
manipulation has been used by the Trump FCC like a drunk uses a
lamppost--to lean against, to support the unsupportable.
We have heard comments about what investment was before and
what investment was afterwards. There is only one reason to
invest and that is to get a return. You don't say, I am not
going to invest because of regulation. You say, I am going to
invest because I am going to get a return.
And one of the things we have to do, especially in New
Mexico and other rural States, is to make sure that we have
programs in place that help get that return--a universal
service support program, which itself needs to be directed
towards building, towards capital expenditures, rather than
operating expenditures.
Mr. Lujan. And, Mr. Powell, in your response to Mr. Welch I
think you touched on this. Do you have the same viewpoint of
Mr. Wheeler or would you agree with sentiment of my question?
Mr. Powell. I would say since 2016, at least in the cable
industry, we have had a very significant increase in our
network investment. Two years ago, 4 percent of Americans had 1
gigabit speeds. As of the end of 2018 in our industry 80
percent of American households had gigabit speeds. That is a
pretty substantial----
Mr. Lujan. But, Mr. Powell, my question is specific to
tribal communities in rural America in places like where I
live. Does the same hold true in States like mine with the
statistics you just laid out?
So if I went back and I evaluated your response would I see
a correlation in New Mexico?
Mr. Powell. Well, you--look, the low-income, hard-to-serve
areas are a problem we all agree with serving. I am not so sure
whether any of these order fundamentally change that challenge.
But, yes, I believe some of this advancement for the citizens
of New Mexico is just as viable as it is in other States.
Mr. Lujan. Well, I appreciate your response because we
agree with these challenges. Chairman Pai said that this was
going to revolutionize access in rural America and to tribal
communities in places like where I live and it is not----
Mr. Powell. Well, he's the other brown guy. I am not the
one----
Mr. Lujan. Well--no, but my point is, it is not true. It is
not true, and that is the concern that I have for the
constituents that I represent. I will park that aside.
There are a few things, Mr. Chairman, that I want to get
into the record, and I have one question for Ms. Gonzalez I
want to get in. There is an article that I want to submit into
the record. It is now clear none of the supposed benefits of
killing net neutrality are real. This points to the question I
just asked. It is an article by Karl Bode with Motherboard. If
I may, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Lujan. A letter from the internet service providers to
Chairman Pai with concerns associated with the order as well,
Mr. Chairman, dated June 27, 2017.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Lujan. An article, ``Filtering Out the Bots: What
Americans Actually Have Told the FCC About Net Neutrality
Repeal.'' This goes to the essence of my opening statement as
well, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190207/
108845/HHRG-116-IF16-20190207-SD012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lujan. And statements from my district as well
associated with the net neutrality that I would like submitted
into the record. And, Ms. Gonzalez, I apologize. My time has
expired.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The statements have been retained in committee files and also
are available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190207/
108845/HHRG-116-IF16-20190207-SD013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lujan. I will submit this to you for the record, and I
have a few other questions that I will submit to the remaining
panelists.
I really appreciate you all being here. Thank you for
taking the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
the witnesses for coming here, and excellent testimony.
I have to admit I came to this hearing with some degree of
trepidation about how it might be conducted and I would like to
think we demonstrated a good civil discourse on a very
contentious issue that, from my standpoint, everyone seemed to
be in agreement we should fix.
Devil is in the details how to go about that, of course.
But everyone came out in favor of the key elements of net
neutrality. They at least spoke, which is encouraging from my
standpoint, and folks seem to be interested in actually solving
the problem--big quotes on solving the problem--going forward.
This thing has been floating around since the Bush
administration. The rules of the road seem to be depending on
which party occupies the central office, the presidency. I
think, Chairman Powell, you mentioned in your testimony over
the last 15 years 6 different FCC Chairmen from both political
parties have wrestled with this issue. Net neutrality has been
at the courts 4 different times--more coming up, from what you
were saying.
You know, I have to believe this leaves consumers, you
know, virtually unprotected and businesses completely in the
dark about what the rules of the road are and that is not good
for anybody or everybody, at the end of the day.
Consumers and folks in the industry I think all agree we
need the transparency, no blocking, no throttling, no paid
prioritization except for health and public safety--that came
out here today--and no discrimination. Thank you very much for
the testimony that Ms. Gonzalez and Ms. Livier gave. I think
that is very important.
I am an Article I of the Constitution person at heart. My
job is to legislate. Congress is supposed to be the legislative
body. We have far too long abdicated, I think, our
responsibilities to the executive branch and we end up--put Mr.
Wheeler and Mr. Powell in tough situations doing the best they
can. They have done yeoman's work. I appreciate the work both
of you have done.
So I think what we have heard so far today is that Congress
has failed, you know, to provide the FCC with clear legislative
and congressional direction and I, for one, like several others
here have also said today favor that we go down that route.
The last Congress I supported Congress--or excuse me,
Chairman Doyle's resolution of disapproval of Chairman Pai's
rule because it is pretty irresponsible for Chairman Pai to
roll back the Wheeler order without putting in any other, you
know, enforceable protections for consumers.
I would love to see our subcommittee work in a bipartisan
manner, finally codify some rules with all your help and people
out there and back in my home district to protect consumers and
provide those clear rules of the road. I think there is an
opportunity.
And for my colleagues who are truly concerned following
Chairman Pai's action about consumers not being protected right
now, if we choose not to solve this problem in this Congress,
then those consumers will continue to be at risk at least over
the next 2 years and quite possibly into the distant future.
So I think it is time to end the uncertainty for consumers
and businesses, do our job, legislate net neutrality.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardenas, 5
minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you so much for having this hearing.
I take it that everybody at this panel is for open and free
internet. Is that true?
Ms. Dixon. I am.
Ms. Livier. Yes.
Mr. Franell. Yes.
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Powell. True.
Mr. Wheeler. You bet.
Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Chairman, what are we doing here?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cardenas. Problem solved. It is not an issue.
Some people would have believed that just allowing things
to be the way they are is solving a problem. But I believe that
doing nothing in today's space and watching the courts decide
the fate of consumers, of smaller businesses, good actors like
yourself, Mr. Franell. I am very impressed with your intent and
your actions. Thank you so much.
But not every actor on the playing field that we are
talking about today has that kind of will and commitment to not
do things differently if in fact the lanes are not defined and
that is the biggest problem that we have here.
I think we have former incredible Chairmen here. I have so
much respect for both of you, former Chairman Powell and then
former Chairman Wheeler.
Every time I talk with you I feel enlightened, and I am not
joking. I really, really do. The ability for you to articulate
the decades of knowledge that you have on something that even
one of my colleagues actually said, I don't even understand
what you just said.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cardenas. That--that is amazing, and thank you for your
service. Thank you for your service when you were in the public
sector as Chairman of the Commission, and thank you for your
service in the private sector continuing to try to wrap your
head around how do we make a better world for everybody. So
thank you so much.
And to all of you--Ms. Gonzalez, for what you do and I
believe that you are in the public sector in the sense that you
work for a not-for-profit and you are just trying to make
things better for the least among us, and I don't mean it in a
derogatory way.
I am talking about the smallest of the smallest businesses,
the mothers and fathers who--they just want to make a life for
their family better and this happens to be the space that they
are doing it in.
And for those of you who are in the smaller space on the
playing field, God bless you, because you can get squashed like
a bug or run over in a moment's notice and most people wouldn't
even know you are gone. So thank you for all that you do.
But, Ms. Dixon, if you want to take the opportunity. I
think that there was a question--that my esteemed colleague
from Texas, Mr. Flores, mentioned Firefox and I think that you
may have wanted to comment but ran out of time.
Ms. Dixon. I did. I think that the notion that Firefox and
that Mozilla was created at a time when that neutrality rules
weren't in play is just silly. We are starting back from the
status quo. As much as I have a ton of respect for Chairman
Wheeler, he didn't actually create that neutrality. That
neutrality existed on the internet for years and years and
years.
What we had, we had principles under Chairman Powell's
regime in the FCC. We also had merger agreements that had
restrictions with respect to net neutrality. We had lots of
protections in play and that is what the web was founded on.
So we were founded--Mozilla and Firefox--during an era when
that neutrality was strong. It is now, today, for the first
time that we actually don't have net neutrality rules that
protect consumers.
Thank you.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. And the thing is that when you talk about
protections I call them lanes. I happen to have been a small
business owner at one time in a regulated industry and some of
my colleagues would get upset when more regulations would come
along.
And I would look at those regulations and read them, and
then I would realize that many of them actually helped us stay
within our lane and actually helped us make sure that we stayed
out of the legal system because we had lanes that we could
follow.
And when we followed them we could defend ourselves and say
we did proper practice when somebody was trying to sue us or
what have you and things of that nature.
So lanes, to me, are very important and this is an arena
where the lanes are basically muddled and right now the courts
just might even make it even worse as far as less lanes for us
to--for everyone to follow by.
But also, Mr. Franell, again, my compliments to you. But at
the same time, you mentioned something in your opening
statement about the bad actors and kind of like, you know what,
the bad actors they will get weeded out because they will lose
business.
But with all due respect, the smallest businesses in this
space can disappear almost overnight because of a bad actor
that they had, you know, run into like a Mack truck. That is--
that is my concern--that when we have lanes less of that, the
smallest players on the field, disappear.
And I just want to thank Vanessa, if you don't mind--I met
your daughter--if you don't mind me mentioning her name. People
like Vanessa, this is the means of which she feeds her
daughter, Alina, and I just got to tell you we have to make
sure that what we do, Mr. Chairman--and I'll yield back in just
2 seconds--we have to think about everybody, not just the
largest players on the playing field.
Thank you, and I yield.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The committee would like to welcome Mrs. McMorris Rodgers,
who waived on today, and you are welcome to speak for 5
minutes.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate the chance to join you all today on an
issue that I believe should have been resolved probably many
years ago in a bipartisan fashion.
Up until really 2015 there had been decades of bipartisan
consensus on the principles of an open free internet--
principles that would ensure consumer protections without
disrupting the free flow of information and innovation that has
made it the cornerstone of our 21st century economy.
This debate isn't about the merits of an open free
internet. I support an open free internet. I think we have
large agreement on supporting an open free internet. Colleagues
on both sides of the aisle have mentioned that.
This is really about how we as Americans want to shape the
future of our economy. Do we want to regulate the internet as a
1930s style utility where we have more burdensome regulation
and price controls that I fear will stifle innovation?
An internet that will leave many rural and underserved
communities behind, like in my district? Or do we want a 21st
century internet that will juice our economy, create jobs, and
allow us to be a leader in new cutting-edge technologies like
AI or IoT, autonomous vehicles--an economy that utilizes
advances in technology to lift people out of poverty and
provide them with more economic opportunities?
I think we all agree that we want the latter. That is why I
am introducing the Promoting Free Internet Freedom and
Innovation Act, and this bill is based upon Washington State
law. It would codify the bright line rules of net neutrality,
specifically, no blocking, no throttling, no paid
prioritization.
This is a solution that passed in my home State on a widely
bipartisan basis, a bill that was signed by Democratic
Governor, supported by Democrats in the congressional
delegation, and was praised by former FCC Commissioner Clyburn.
But, most importantly, it is a solution that does not
institute changes to the internet that would stop innovation,
stifle broadband deployment, and leave millions of Americans
behind--a solution that codifies the key principles on which
both parties agree and have agreed for many years.
The internet has revolutionized every single aspect of our
lives. It has changed how we communicate. It has changed how we
approach our own personal health or travel across town.
It has improved the quality of life for millions of
Americans. We all agree it is vital to our future and the
opportunity that it provides for our economy and hardworking
men and women in our 21st century is really endless.
I want to once and for all resolve what I believe is a
manufactured political debate and provide certainty to the
internet ecosystem so that we can make that opportunity a
reality for every single American.
So I would like to focus my questioning on the Federal
versus State debate. While I believe that the provisions of the
Washington State law are reasonable and consistent with the
principles both parties have been disusing at the Federal level
for years now, I do not believe that is wise to regulate by a
State-by-State approach.
The internet is the key to interstate commerce. It does not
end at our borders and a Federal solution is the only way
forward.
Chairman Powell, can you briefly discuss why pursuing an
open internet regulation at the State level can be harmful to
innovation and consumers and why do we need the Federal
solution?
Mr. Powell. I remember when the internet really rose there
was an economist author named Frances Cairncross who said this
was the death of distance. This was a network that knew no
boundaries, respected no geographical limitations, and
consequently can't really responsibly be regulated in buckets
and chunks.
We have understood those principles since the days of
interstate commerce in trucking, in the environment, and all
kinds of areas where you just don't have an ability to
logically organize law around different State jurisdictions.
I think there is no question that the internet is
interstate in nature. It would be hazardous to regulate it in
any other than a single comprehensive way.
Mrs. Rodgers. As a followup, do you believe the FCC
currently has the authority to preempt attempts to regulate
this issue at the State level?
Mr. Powell. I do. That has been their position and I also
believe that it would fall under conflict preemption, meaning
the two regimes are not reconciled.
Mrs. Rodgers. And one final question--do you believe that
the Washington State law and this legislation are consistent
with the four internet freedoms you described in 2004 when you
were Chairman of the FCC?
Mr. Powell. My limited understanding of it is yes. I think
there are some aspects of it be examined more carefully like
specialized services. But I also would note it's a really
productive piece of work and didn't include anything that looks
like Title II.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. OK. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
The Chair is going to request unanimous consent to enter
the following documents into the record: an article from Free
Press, a letter from Consumer Reports, a letter from the
American Library Association, a letter from Tech Freedom
Coalition, an article from Motherboard, an article from
Financial Times, and a 2010 letter to former FCC Chairman
Genachowski.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. I want to thank the witnesses for their
participation in today's hearing. We genuinely appreciate you
coming here and I want to remind Members that, pursuant to the
committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by the
witnesses who have appeared.
I would ask each witness to respond promptly to any such
questions that you may receive.
At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]