• Mr. Tom Simmons

  Senior Vice President of Public Policy

  Midcontinent Communications

Majority Statement

• Chairman John Thune
  Download Statement (96.13 KB)

Minority Statement

• Ranking Member Bill Nelson
  Read statement

  Minority Statement

  Ranking Member Bill Nelson

  Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today on a very important and timely topic.  As I said yesterday at our organizational meeting, I look forward to working with you to continue this committee’s proud tradition of working in true bipartisan fashion.

  In a very short time, the Internet has become an essential part of all of our lives.  Many of us are almost constantly connected to the Internet – whether at school, at work, or at play.  Computers, tablets and smartphones are almost always at arm’s reach.  Access to broadband Internet service is no longer a “luxury” item – it is a basic service that provides a vital link to our friends, family and the rest of society.

  Because it is an integral part of how we live, there is broad agreement today among consumers, in many parts of industry, and in Congress that we have to protect a free and open Internet.  That was not always the case.  For years, we heard from some that net neutrality “was a solution in search of a problem.”  I am very glad we have moved beyond that tired talking point and are here today to discuss how we can best preserve a free and open Internet.  That is an important step and I fully appreciate how far many of my colleagues have come on this issue in a very short time.  

  Over 4 million Americans have taken the time to weigh in directly with the FCC to express their desire for strong net neutrality protections.  They do not want their access to websites and services blocked.  They want to know more about their Internet service and the overall performance of the connection.   And they certainly are worried about their broadband provider picking winners and losers on the Internet by relegating those content companies who refuse to pay a toll to a slow lane of service.

  Chairman Thune and I have been talking about these issues for some time, and I remain willing to continue those discussions.  But let me be clear about what is important to me - and I believe to most consumers – as conversations progress.

  First, we must be vigilant in protecting consumers’ interests. Theirs is the lens through which we must see any proposal on net neutrality.

  Second, while I appreciate and respect the desire by businesses for certainty for investment and operation, I remain concerned about any proposal that could strip away the FCC’s tools to enforce essential consumer protections for broadband service. 

  The Internet is evolving at a blistering pace.  The Internet we know today likely will be vastly different a decade from now.  When we started the space program, for example, who would have ever thought we would be discussing putting a man on Mars.  

  With an ever-evolving Internet, we need a regulator who is not frozen in time.  The FCC must have authority that is flexible enough that it can respond to a changing world.  If we put a straightjacket on the commission, we may very well miss the future and leave the agency powerless - and American consumers defenseless - to deal with emerging problems.

  For over 80 years, Congress has tasked the FCC with preventing unjust practices, stopping unreasonable discrimination, protecting competition, and promoting the public interest.  These are not mere abstract ideals. 

  Without this flexible authority, the FCC could not have successfully extended universal service funding to broadband or ensure the privacy of sensitive consumer information.  These laws and principles have made the U.S. telecommunications market the envy of the world – and they should not be discarded.  

  Finally, some maintain that we must have congressional action on net neutrality prior to FCC action.  I do not share that concern. 

  It is more important to get this issue right than it is to get it done right now.  The stakes are too high.  The congressional prerogative to act does not cease merely because an agency has moved forward and done its job.  Similarly, an agency is not always required to cease its reasoned consideration of an issue merely because Congress may be examining that same concern at the same time. 

  To that end, I welcome the FCC's efforts to put in place necessary consumer protections for the Internet.  I look forward to reviewing the particulars of Chairman Wheeler's proposal next month.

  I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.  I look forward to hearing your testimony.

  ###

   

   

Testimony

• The Honorable Meredith Attwell Baker

  President and CEO

  CTIA-The Wireless Association
  Download Testimony (1.19 MB)

• Mr. Gene Kimmelman

  President and CEO

  Public Knowledge
  Download Testimony (220.37 KB)

• The Honorable Robert McDowell

  Senior Fellow

  Hudson Institute
  Download Testimony (57.97 KB)

• Mr. Paul Misener

  Vice President, Global Public Policy

  http://Amazon.com, Inc.
  Download Testimony (70.52 KB)

• Mr. Tom Simmons

  Senior Vice President of Public Policy

  Midcontinent Communications
  Download Testimony (97.25 KB)

• Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee

  Vice President & Chief Research and Policy Officer

  Minority Media & Telecommunications Council
  Download Testimony (937.95 KB)