WASHINGTON, D.C.—Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV today will rise against a Republican attempt to eliminate the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules that maintain a free and open Internet for Americans.  The Senate floor debate on S.J.Res. 6 is scheduled to begin at approximately 10:45 a.m. ET.  Watch live on C-SPAN2.

Chairman Rockefeller’s prepared opening remarks follow:

I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 6, a resolution brought under the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the FCC’s Open Internet Rules.  Americans want the Internet to remain free and open.  Americans want to be able to go where they want and do what they want on the Internet.  They want to be able to develop new businesses; read and watch video; and reach out to friends, family, and community—online.  And they want to do all of these things on the Internet, without having to ask permission from their broadband provider.

The FCC has promulgated balanced rules that let Americans do all of these things—and keep the Internet open and free.  So let us be very clear from the outset.  No matter how S. J. Res. 6 is dressed up in language that suggests it will promote openness and freedom, it will not do that.  The resolution is misguided.  It will add uncertainty to the economy.  It will hinder small businesses dependent on fair broadband access.  It will undermine innovation.  It will hamper investment in digital commerce.  And it will imperil the openness and freedom that has been the hallmark of the Internet from the very start.  

The FCC’s rules were the product of hard work, consensus, and compromise.  The agency had extensive input from stakeholders from all quarters of the broadband economy.  In fact, the FCC received written input from more than 100,000 commenters.  And 90 percent of those filing supported adoption of Open Internet rules.

On top of this, the rules are based on longstanding and widely accepted Open Internet principles, which were first articulated during the Bush Administration.  These rules do three basic and simple things.  First, they impose a transparency obligation on providers of broadband Internet access service.  This means that all broadband providers are required to publicly disclose to consumers accurate information regarding the network management practices. 

Second, the rules prohibit fixed broadband providers from blocking lawful content, applications, services and devices.  This means consumers and innovators will continue to have the right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, with mobile broadband service providers subjected to a more limited set of prohibitions.  Third, the rules aim to ensure that the Internet remains a level playing field by prohibiting fixed broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating in transmitting lawful network traffic.

Finally, the rules are meant to apply with the complementary principle of reasonable network management, which provides broadband providers the flexibility to address congestion or traffic that’s harmful to the network.  These are principles I believe everyone can support.  

So I ask my colleagues, what is wrong with transparency?  Why would we want to promote Internet blocking or discrimination?  What is so unreasonable about reasonable network management?  

I believe that the FCC’s effort, along with ongoing oversight and enforcement, will protect consumers.  And I believe it will provide companies with the certainty they need to make investments in our growing digital economy.  While many champions of the open Internet would have preferred a stricter decision—and I myself have real reservations about treating wireless broadband differently from wired broadband—I think the FCC’s decision was a meaningful step forward.

Supporters of the joint resolution fail to acknowledge that the FCC’s Open Internet rules have received overwhelming support from broadband Internet service providers, consumers and public groups, labor unions, as well as high-tech companies.  AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson stated earlier this year that while he wanted “no regulation,” the FCC’s Open Internet Order “ended at a place where we have a line of sight, and we know and can commit to investments.”  Time Warner Cable stated at the time of the Order’s release that the rules adopted “appear to reflect a workable balance between protecting consumers’ interests and preserving incentives for investment and innovation by broadband Internet service providers.” 

Numerous analysts from major investment banks have found that the Open Internet Order removes regulatory overhang and allows telecom and cable companies to focus on investment.  Google, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Skype, and other leaders in innovation all urged the FCC to adopt “common sense baseline rules. . . critical to ensuring that the Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness.”

More than 150 organizations wrote Congress to oppose this joint resolution, including: the Communications Workers of America; the AFL-CIO; the NAACP; the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; the American Library Association; the American Association of Independent Music; the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; the League of United Latin American Citizens; the National Organization for Women; and TechNet.  I have their letters here, and I request that they be added to the congressional record. 

To be sure, there are those who disagree with the FCC’s Open Internet rules.  And there is an avenue for those complaints: the judicial system.  Two companies have filed lawsuits claiming that the FCC went too far.  Several public interest groups have filed lawsuits claiming the FCC did not go far enough.  It is their legal right to do so.

While I am not opposed to the Congressional Review Act, it is a blunt instrument.  It means that all of the rules adopted by the FCC must be overturned at once.  This would even mean tossing out common-sense provisions about transparency.  It would deny the agency the power to protect consumers—and it would prevent the FCC from ever adopting even similar rules.  Where is the sense in that?

So, let’s think for a minute what a world would look like without a free and open Internet.  In a world without a free and open Internet, consumers and entrepreneurs would have no transparency as to how their broadband provider manages its network—no ability to make informed decisions about their broadband provider.  In a world without a free and open Internet, there would be nothing to prevent your broadband provider from steering you only to its preferred websites and services, limiting your choice as a consumer.

If you are a rural American, broadband Internet access has the power to erase distances and allows you to have the same access to shopping, educational, and employment opportunities as those living in more urban areas.  But not if the website you seek to access is blocked by your broadband provider.  Consumers, entrepreneurs, and small businesses need the certainty that they can access the lawful websites of their choice when they want.  Period.

In a world without a free and open Internet, there would be nothing to stop broadband providers from blocking access to websites that offer products that compete with those of its affiliates.  In a world without a free and open Internet, companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee that their websites open more quickly than competitors.

In a world without a free and open Internet, companies could pay Internet providers to make sure that their online sales are processed more quickly than competitors with lower prices – particularly disturbing in these tough economic times.  In a world without a free and open Internet, there would be nothing to prevent Internet service providers from charging users a premium in order to guarantee operation in the “fast lane.”

If you are trying to start a small business, struggling to make ends meet, and cannot afford to pay the toll, you run the risk of being left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete with larger companies.

And what if you are an innovator or a start-up company with the next big idea?  With broadband, the next big idea does not have to come from a suburban garage or Silicon Valley—it can come from rural America.  A free and open Internet is all that is required to give that big idea a global reach.

In a world without a free and open Internet, the ability of that next revolutionary idea to reach others—to make it to the greater marketplace—would be entirely dependent on a handful of entrenched broadband gatekeepers and toll collectors.

I also want to address the argument of supporters of the joint resolution that the FCC’s Open Internet rules will somehow stifle innovation in the Internet economy.  That is just plain wrong.  Over the past 15 years, the open Internet has been the greatest engine for the U.S. economy, creating more than 3 million jobs.  The Open Internet rules will help sustain this growth.  According to Hamilton Consultants, the open Internet ecosystem has led to the creation of 1.8 million jobs related to applications and e-commerce, as well as 1.2 million jobs related to infrastructure.

Moreover, investment and innovation have continued to increase since adoption of the FCC’s Open Internet rules.  Not decrease, as supporters of this resolution may tell you.  The facts show that investment in broadband networks increased in the first half of 2011.  In fact, investment in networks that support broadband was more than 10 percent higher in the first half of 2011 than in the first half of 2010.  Investment in Internet companies surged in 2011 with $2.3 billion going into 275 companies in the second quarter.  That is the most invested in Internet companies in a decade.  Plus, shortly after the framework was adopted, America’s leading wireless providers announced they were accelerating the deployment of their advanced fourth generation, or “4G” networks.

It seems that the Open Internet rules are giving broadband providers, entrepreneurs, and investors the certainty they need to invest and create jobs.  The FCC’s Open Internet rules also protect small businesses.  An estimated 20,000 small businesses operate on the Internet.  More than 600,000 Americans have part- or full-time business on eBay alone.

The FCC’s Open Internet rules mean that small entrepreneurs will not have to seek permission from broadband providers to reach new markets and consumers with innovative products and services.  This is vitally important.  It means that small businesses can be located anywhere in this country, including rural America, and through open broadband have the opportunity for their ideas, products, and services to have global reach.  And as we all know, small businesses were responsible for nearly 65 percent of new jobs over the last 15 years.  Far from preventing investment, the FCC’s Open Internet rules will foster small businesses and support their demonstrated ability to create jobs.  

Finally, I want to note that when it comes to education, privacy, intellectual property, global Internet governance, or network security, the government has long provided reasonable rules of the road to make possible consumer protection, fair trade, and open markets.  The FCC’s Open Internet rules are no different.  They take a light-touch approach and keep the playing field fair.  They keep the Internet open and free.  For consumers.  For businesses.  For everyone in this country who wants access to broadband Internet.  

That is why I support the FCC’s Open Internet rules and I encourage my colleagues to vote against the joint resolution.

###