Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
REAL WAY TO AMEND THIS AND CARRY
OUT ITS LAWFUL ACTION.
SO IN A RARE INSTANCE THIS MAKES
SENSE TO HAVE A CLOSED RULE.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD
BACK MY TIME TO YOU.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
RESERVES.
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO IS
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OREGON MENTIONED KOSHER NET AND
OTHER SITES THAT MIGHT WANT TO
PROVIDE PROPRIETARY CONTENT.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS
RULE MAKING AND RULE MAKING
PROCESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
PROPRIETARY NETWORKS.
IT REFERS TO THE INTERNET.
I OWN SEVERAL PATENTS WITH
REGARD TO INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES,
IN THOSE AS IS COMMON WE
DESCRIBE THE INTERNET AS AN
OPEN-ENDED GATEWAY NETWORK.
TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE THRIVING
PROPRIETARY NETWORKS BE THAT
RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED OR
COMMERCIAL, THE F.C.C. IS NOT
TALKING ABOUT THOSE WITH REGARD
TO THIS MATTER.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I WOULD LIKE TO
SUBMIT A RECORD, COURT REJECTS
SUIT OVER NET NEUTRALITY RULE.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
RULE ON THE PRIOR POINT?
I'LL BE HAPPY TO
DISCUSS IT ON YOUR TIME.
I WANT TO MOVE ON TO THE POINT.
I WILL BE HAPPY TO ENTER A
COLLOQUY WITH YOU ON YOUR TIME.
THE STAR TRIBUNE SAYS COURT
REJECTS SUIT OVER NET NEUTRALITY
RULES.
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT REJECTED A
LAWSUIT BY VERIZON.
THE CHALLENGE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S COMMUNICATIONS
RULES.
WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS LIKE
MANY NEWSPAPER SITES, THIS WAS
-- CITES, THIS WAS A DECISION
BETWEEN ME AND THE NEWSPAPER
ABOUT HOW I WOULD GET ACCESS.
SOME NEWSPAPERS WANT TO CHARGE
FOR ACCESS.
OTHERS DON'T.
I WAS HAPPY THE "MINNEAPOLIS
STAR TRIBUNE" ALLOWED ME ACCESS
BECAUSE I WASN'T ABOUT TO PAY.
HOW DO THEY PAY FOR IT?
THEY HAVE A COUPLE ADS IN HERE.
APPARENTLY BILL MAYOR WILL BE AT
CASINO.
MISS PARTICULAR LAKE HOTEL AND
I WON'T BE THERE.
AND THEN THERE'S SOMETHING
CALLED LICENSE TO THRILL, ALSO
AT MISS PARTICULAR LAKE CASINO
AND HOTEL.
I ASSUME THEY DID A STUDY AND
FOUND MANY OF THE VIEWERS MIGHT
BE INTERESTED IN MISS PARTICULAR
LAKE.
AGAIN IT WAS THEIR DECISION.
THE "MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE'S"
DECISION DO WE SELL -- "THE NEW
YORK TIMES" IS STARTING TO
CHARGE FOR ACCESS.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE DO
WITH THE FREE PORTION.
DO I PAY FOR THE "WALL STREET
JOURNAL" ONLINE, IT'S WORTH
EVERY PENNY.
IT'S HARD TO STRIKE THAT
BALANCE.
WHAT THIS BODY IS CONSIDERING BY
NOT HAVING A NET NEUTRALITY
REGIME IN PLACE IS ADD ANOTHER
PARTY TO THIS CONTRACT BETWEEN
ME AN THE STAR TRIBUNE.
IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, THEY ARE
LETTING YOU ACCESS, THERE'S ALSO
THE PROVIDER.
YOU KNOW WHAT?
YOU CAN HAVE THE PROVIDER SAY,
WE ARE NOT GOING TO SERVE UP
THESE ADS.
WE ARE GOING TO SERVE UP OUR
OWN.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU
ACCESS TO THE STAR TRIBUNE
UNLESS YOU BUY OUR NEWSPAPER
PLUS SERVICE FOR AVERPB EXTRA
$14.95 A MONTH.
YOU ARE CHANGING THE VALUE CHAIN
IN A WAY THAT'S UNPRECEDENTED
AND ENORMOUS VALUE BECAUSE YOU
ARE PUTTING THEM IN PARGE OF THE
WHOLE INTERNET OF THE PROVIDERS
AND THE BANDWIDTH AND PIPELINES.
YES, THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO HAVE.
AND, YES, THEY NEED TO HAVE A
RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
AND, YES, THEY SUPPORT THE
F.C.C. RULES AS A FAIR WAY TO DO
THAT.
WOULD THEY RATHER HAVE TO HAVE A
REACH AND CONTROL THE INTERNET?
SURE, THEY WOULD RATHER CONTROL
ALL THE AD SPACE ON EVERY
NEWSPAPER AND EVERY OTHER
WEBSITE.
THEY KNOW THAT'S A REACH.
THERE IS NO SERIOUS MARKET VAL
IDENTIFICATION THAT'S GIVEN BY
INVESTORS OR INVESTMENT ANALYSTS
IN THAT SCENARIO THAT WOULD
THREATEN AND KILL THE VERY
INTERNET ITSELF.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO HAVE A
FREE AND OPEN INTERNET FOR ALL.
TO ENSURE THERE'S NOT ANOTHER
PARTY THAT COMES IN AND STEALS
THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
USAGE OF OTHERS.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS VERY
IN.
REASONABLE F.C.C. RULES HAVE PUT
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
THE
TIME.
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO
RESERVES.
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
MR. SPEAKER, I'D
LIKE TO YIELD TWO MINUTES AGAIN
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
BACK ON KOSHER NET, THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS BASICALLY SINGLED
THAT OUT AND SAID NO YOU CAN'T
AS AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER
HAVE THAT SYSTEM.
YOU CAN'T EVEN IF YOU WANT TO.
I THINK THAT'S DIFFERENT.
AS FOR THE COURT DECISIONS, THE
GENTLEMAN REFERENCED, I DON'T
KNOW WHERE HE'S GOING ON THAT, I
UNDERSTAND THE COURT SAID THE
TIME IS NOT RIPE YET FOR THE
APPEAL BY VERIZON AND METRO
P.C.S. ON THE INTERNET RULES.
NOT RIPE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAS
NOT PUT THESE RULES INTO THE
FEDERAL REGISTER BECAUSE THEY
HAVEN'T COMPLETED SOME OF THEIR
DUE DILIGENCE APPARENTLY ON THE
EFFECTS ON BUSINESS.
ANOTHER POINT, THAT WILL STILL
BE RIPE TO LITIGATE LATER ON.
THE OTHER PART I WANT TO MAKE IS
UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE THESE
RULES PROMULGATING I BELIEVE
OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY OF THE
F.C.C. APPLY TO THE INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDER THE PIPES, IF
YOU WILL, THEY DO NOT APPLY TO
THE CONTENT PROVIDERS AT THE
OTHER END.
IN OTHER WORDS, ONCE YOU GET ON
THE FREEWAY AS WE KNOW THE
INTERNET, YOU WANT TO GET OUT
FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS
EVENTUALLY.
AND SO A LOT OF PEOPLE GO TO A
PARTICULAR SEARCH SITE LET'S
SAY, A SEARCH ENGINE, AND THAT
SEARCH ENGINE'S MAKING ENORMOUS
DECISIONS ABOUT WHERE YOU END UP
ON THE INTERNET.
THOSE SEARCH ENGINES AND OTHER
PROVIDERS LIKE THAT, THEY ARE
NOT UNDER THESE RULES AT ALL.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST I'M NOT
EAGER TO HAVE THEM UNDER THESE
RULES, BUT I FIND IT FASCINATING
THAT THEY CAN BLOCK, THEY CAN
TACKLE, THEY CAN HIDE, THEY CAN
CHANGE THEIR ALAG A THEM SELVES
BY THE TIME YOU SEARCH FOR
SOMETHING, YOU MAY GET MOVED
FROM NUMBER ONE IN YOUR CATEGORY
TO NUMBER 71 BECAUSE THEY MAKE
SOME DECISION IN THEIR LOGA
RHYTHM -- LOG RHYTHM.
MOST OF RUSS ON THE INTERNET AND
WE ARE A VERY POWERFUL COMMUNITY
WHEN SOMEBODY MISBEHAVES.
GENERALLY THE INTERNET HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE MISBEHAVIORS
HAVE BEEN PUNISHED BY THE
CONSUMERS IN AN OPEN AND FREE
MARKETPLACE EFFECTIVELY AND
QUICKLY AND MUCH BETTER THAN
THROUGH A GOVERNMENT REGULATORY
REGIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
COULD I YIELD
MYSELF 60 SECONDS.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THIS TEAM OF FOLKS
WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS
ENDING UP WITH THE TREMENDOUS
BURDENS ON SMALL BUSINESS, I
HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED AND
WOULD LIKE TO INFORM THIS BODY
THAT THE SENATE HAS PASSED H.R.
4, THE HOUSE'S REPEAL OF THE
BURDENSOME 1099 REGULATION
REQUIREMENT THAT OBAMACARE BY A
VOTE OF 87-12.
THE BILL'S ON ITS WAY TO THE
PRESIDENT FOR HIS SIGNATURE.
THIS REPRESENTS A HUGE WIN FOR
AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES.
A HUGE WIN FOR THE ABOLITION OF
BURDENSOME GFT REGULATION AND --
GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND THE
FIRST OFFICIAL PARTIAL REPEAL OF
OBAMACARE THAT WILL GO TO THE
PRESIDENT'S DESK AND BECOME LAW.
I THANK THE CHAIR.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA RESERVES.
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO IS
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH
TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
FIRST, WITH REGARD TO THE 1099
CLOSING, I THINK AGAIN WE CAN
APPLY THIS AS A STEP FORWARD FOR
SMALL BUSINESS.
MANY OF US WISH THERE COULD HAVE
BEEN A DIFFERENT WAY OF PAYING
FOR T I DID SUPPORT IT TWICE IN
THE LAST SESSION OF CONGRESS.
WHILE THERE IS MAJOR WINNERS AND
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE, WE NEEDED
TO CLOSE THE 1099 LOOPHOLE.
I'M GLAD WE DID.
THE LOSERS UNDER THIS ARE FERN
FAMILIES MAKING ABOUT $85,000 A
YEAR WHICH WILL BE STUCK WITH A
LARGE REPUBLICAN TAX INCREASE.
MR. SPEAKER, WITH REGARD TO NET
NEUTRALITY, IT IS INDEED A BRAVE
NEW WORLD THAT WE FACE ON THE
INTERNET.
AND I HAVE BEEN AN INTERNET USER
SINCE THE EARLY 1990'S.
MY FIRST COMPANY WAS AN INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDER.
I HAVE EXPERIENCE ON THAT FRONT.
IT IS A VERY DYNAMISM OF THE
INTERNET ITSELF THAT BRINGS ITS
VALUE TO HUMANITY AND AMERICANS.
THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO
PROTECT THAT UNDER NET
NEUTRALITY AND OPEN INTERNET
PROVISIONS.
ANOTHER CRITICAL PROVISION
THAT'S GENERALLY HAD SUPPORT
FROM ACROSS THE AISLE HAS BEEN A
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE BROADBAND
PROVIDERS IN FOREIGN CONSUMERS
ABOUT WHETHER -- PART OF THE
ISSUE HAS BEEN E-- WE ONLY FIND
OUT ABOUT THESE THINGS AFTER THE
FACT AFTER ACCUSATIONS ARE MADE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ONE OF THE
REASONS I OPPOSE THIS IS RULE IS
MS. MATSUI OFFERED AN AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD INCREASE CONSUMER
LED TO GREATER
INVESTMENT OF BROND BAD THAT
WOULD HAVE SIMPLE TRANSPARENCY
WITH REQUIREMENT TO REGARD TO
THIS MATTER.
NET NEUTRALITY KEEPS THE
INTERNET FREE AND OPEN.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
JUST AS THE POSTAL SERVICE CAN'T
DISCRIMINATE IN DELIVERING LEGAL
CONTENT, SO, TOO, THE INTERNET
SHOULD NOT DISCRIMINATE IN
DELIVERING LEGAL CONTENT.
PROPRIETARY NETWORK CAN WORK
THEIR WILL AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM OREGON MENTIONED KOSHER NET
OR PEOPLE USERS THAT MIGHT ONLY
MACHINES.
WANT CERTAIN ACCESS ON THEIR
THEY ARE EMPOWERED TO DO THAT
UNDER OPEN INTERNET REGULATIONS.
THEY CAN HAVE PROGRAMS THAT CAN
SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, MANY PARENTS
DO THIS, THEY WANT PARENTAL
CONTROLS OR BLOCK CERTAIN SITES.
THEY CAN ONLY HAVE CERTAIN SITES
THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE AND BLOCK
DOWN OTHERS.
MANY PEOPLE, THEY ARE EMPOWERED
TO DO THIS NOT BY THEIR
PROVIDER, NO, THEY ARE EMPOWERED
TO DO THIS BY CHOOSING A
SOFTWARE AND SERVICE THAT THEY
USE TO BE ABLE TO RESTRICT THE
INTERNET FOR THEM SELVES OR FOR
A MINOR THAT LIVES IN THEIR
HOME.
THESE DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE
MADE BY LARGE MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS DECIDING WHICH
INTERNET YOU HAVE YOUR OWN
.
ACCESS TO.
70% OF FAMILIES CHOOSE BETWEEN
ONLY ONE OR TWO BROADBAND
PROVIDERS.
NOT THE INTERNET MINUS THAT TOO
MANY AMERICANS COULD FACE IF WE
DON'T ENCODE OPEN INTERNET
REGULATIONINGS F. WE WANT TO
RETAIN THAT ACCESS, WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE VALUE OF THE
INTERNET AND DYNAMISM THAT'S
CREATED BY THE CONTENT AND
APPLICATION PROVIDERS HAVE
UNFETTERED ACCESS TO CONSUMERS
IN AMERICA AND ACROSS THE WORLD.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO
RESERVES.
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
AT THIS TIME I'M
PLEASED TO YIELD FOUR MINUTES TO
A THOUGHTFUL MEMBER OF THE
ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE,
TERNS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA IS
RECOGNIZED.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO REVISE AND EXTEND MY
REMARKS.
LET ME JUST BRING THE ATTENTION
TO THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT
SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT, TRANSPARENCY,
MOVES INTO PRIVACY.
WE HOPE IN THE NEAR FUTURE WE DO
HAVE A PRIVACY BILL.
BUT I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS
YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IMPACTED
WITH THE PRIVACY AND NOT
NECESSARILY IN THIS DEBATE
DEALING WITH HOUSE RESOLUTION
37.
AS THE FORMER RANKING MEMBER OF
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE, BOTH
THE RANKING MEMBER JOE BARTON
AND I HAVE SENT THREE LETTERS TO
THE F.C.C. CHAIRMAN EXPRESSING
OUR STRONG OPPOSITION TO HIS
PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET.
IN FACT, I HAVE INTRODUCED
LEGISLATION THE PAST TWO
CONGRESSES TO TRY TO PREVENT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NET
NEUTRALITY RULES AND OTHER
MEMBERS HAVE SUPPORTED US.
SO IF THERE IS A LONG RECORD
HERE, I WOULD SAY TO MY
COLLEAGUE ON THAT SIDE OF THE
AISLE, OF OUR SIDE TRYING TO PRE
VENT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE F.C.C.
FROM REGULATING THE INTERNET, HE
WENT SO FAR AS TO STEP OUT AND
TRY TO DO IT, THERE WAS A
COMCAST CASE IN APRIL OF 2010
DECISION, THE COURT FOUND THAT
THE F.C.C. FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE
IT HAD ANCILLARY AUTHORITY UNDER
TITLE 1.
SO UNDER TITLE 1 THE COURTS
RULED THEY DID NOT HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
INTERNETANYAHUWORK MANAGEMENT.
I THINK THE COURTS ITSELF HAVE
CROP BROWN-WAITED WHAT MR.
WALDEN HAS INDICATED.
SO WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING IS
AGAINST THE COURT CASE THAT
ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
AS FAR AS THE TENT --
TECHNICALITY THAT VERIZON WAS
INVOLVED WITH, THEY'LL CONTINUE
THE SUIT.
AS MR. WALDEN POINTED OUT,
THEY'LL CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD.
I WOULD ALSO MENTION A LITTLE
BIT WITH THE CHAIRMAN, MR.
WALDEN'S INDICATED DEALING WITH
THE 706 RULE.
THE F.C.C. CLAIMS IT HAS
AUTHORITY TO ENACT THIS UNDER
THE 706 RULE, THE 1996
TELECOMMUNICATION ACT.
I WAS ONE OF THE CONFEREES ON
THAT ACT.
THEY ARE USING THIS AS A WAY TO
ADVANCE TELECOMMUNICATION
CAPABILITY SAYING THEY HAVE THE
AUTHORITY.
BUT THEY CAN'T RELY ON 706
BECAUSE AS THE AGENCY HAS
PREVIOUSLY ACKNOWLEDGED,
ACKNOWLEDGED THEM SELVES,
SECTION 706 IS NOT AN
INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF AUTHORITY.
BECAUSE 706 TALKS
BECAUSE SECTION 706 ERECTS
BARRIERS TO INVESTMENT.
THE -- THEY STRETCH THE
AUTHORITY UNDER THESE
PROVISIONS.
I THINK BETWEEN THE COMCAST
CASE AND THE INTERPRETATION
THAT 706 -- OF 706, THEY DON'T
HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO DO THIS.
IN A LARGER SENSE WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN THE
F.C.C. MOVES OUT AND STARTS TO
REGULATE THE INTERNET THAT
CREATES UNCERTAINTY IN THE
ECONOMY, UNCERTAINTY TO PEOPLE
WHO ARE INVESTING VAST SUMS OF
MONEY FOR FIBEROPTICS SO THEY
CAN SPREAD BROAD BAD --
BROADBAND AND HEAVEN KNOWS WE
DON'T NEED THAT IN THIS
ECONOMY, THIS UNCERTAINTY, SO I
THINK THE F.C.C. WAS UNWISE
JUST IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMY
FOR THIS UNCERTAINTY.
IT'S BEEN OPEN AND THRIVING FOR
ALL THESE YEARS AND BECAUSE OF
A DEREGULATORY APPROACH, IF WE
STEP IN AND LET THE F.C.C.
START TO REGULATE THE INTERNET
UNDER TITLE 1, IT'S GOING TO
CREATE UNCERTAINTY.
THAT'S WHY VERIZON IS MOVING
FORWARD AND AS OTHERS HAVE
POINTED OUT, A LOT OF PEOPLE
ARE FEARFUL OF THE F.C.C.
THAT'S WHY THEY WON'T SAY
ANYTHING.
AS MANY OF US KNOW, LOTS OF
TIMES WHEN YOU'RE IN A
SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE AN
EMPOWERING AUTHORITY UP THERE
THAT CAN REGULATE YOU, YOU
DON'T WANT TO GET THEM UPSET
WITH YOU.
YOU'RE DELICATE IN YOU HOW
MOVE.
THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING,
BASICALLY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
SAY ANYTHING, BUT THEY'RE
TELLING US ON THIS SIDE THEY
CANNOT SEE ANY REASON FOR THE
F.C.C. TO START TO REGULATE.
THERE'S NO CRISIS FOR THEM TO
DO THIS, THE EXAMPLE USED WITH
THE NEWSPAPER IN MINNEAPOLIS,
IT'S NOT A CRISIS.
THE F.C.C. HANGS ITS ADOPTION
OF NET NEUTRALITY RULES ON
PREVENTION OF HARM AND I URGE
PASSAGE OF THIS RULE.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
EVEN IF THE RULES
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE D.C.
CIRCUIT RULING IN COMCAST
VERSUS THE F.C.C., IT FULFILLS
THE F.C.C.'S MAN TAIT FROM
CONGRESS AND WORKS WITH A
MANDATE TO ENCOURAGE BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT BY SUPPORTING
INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT AMONG
THEIR ORPE DUTIES.
LAST YEAR, CONGRESS HAD TISSUE
HAD A CHANCE TO -- CONGRESS HAD
A CHANCE TO -- FOR MANY HIGH
TECH COMPANIES AND BROADBAND
CARRIERS, THAT WOULD HAVE PUT
IN STATUTE A SET OF NET
NEUTRALITY RULES AND WOULD HAVE
DEFINITIVELY THROUGH STATUTE
REMOVED THE THREAT OF TITE 28
RECLASSIFICATION.
THAT WAS BLOCKED BY REPUBLICANS
IN THE HOUSE.
SO AGAIN, I THINK WHEN MR.
WALDEN MENTIONED THERE WERE
SOME FOLKS ON THE BROADBAND
SIDE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN COERCED
INTO SUPPORTING SOMETHING
FEARING THAT THERE WOULD BE A
THREAT OF TITLE 2
RECLASSIFICATION, IT WAS THE
ACTIVITIES OF REPUBLICANS THAT
SPECIFICALLY PREVENTED THE
REMOVAL OF THAT TITLE 2
RECLASSIFICATION, AND IT IS NOT
SEEN AS ANY SERIOUS REGULATORY
OVERHANG WITH REGARD TO THE
VALUATION OF STOCKS IN THAT
AREA BECAUSE THERE'S NO EFFORT
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TITLE 2
REGULATION.
OBVIOUSLY, WITH REGARD TO THIS
MATTER, IF IT'S CREATING
SOMEHOW THIS MUCH CONTROVERSY
AROUND WHAT SHOULD BE
NONCONTROVERSIAL RULES THAT
ENSHRINE INTO PLACE THE CURRENT
FREE AND OPEN INTERNET POLICIES
THAT HAVE SELDOM BEEN VIOLATED
BUT WE FEAR MIGHT BE VIOLATED
MORE IN THE FUTURE.
IF THAT'S PROVOKING THIS KIND
OF DISCUSSION, YOU CAN IMAGINE
WHAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION WOULD
ENSUE IF THERE WAS A SERIOUS
EFFORT TO RECLASSIFY UNDER
TITLE 2.
MR. STEARNS ALSO MENTIONED THAT
MAYBE THE COMMITTEE WILL BEGIN
WORK ON WHAT TYPE OF STATUTES
WE MIGHT HAVE, CERTAINLY
SPECIFICALLY I'M CURIOUS AND I
ASKED MR. WALDEN YESTERDAY IF
THE COMMITTEE WOULD CONSIDER NO
BLOCKING RULES, WOULD THE
CONSIDER -- COMMITTEE CONSIDER
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT, DO
THEY THINK THEY CAN DO A BETTER
JOB THAN THE F.C.C. AND THAT
THIS PODDY WITH ITS VAST
KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTERNET AND
DMSR ARCHITECTURE WOULD DO A
BETTER JOB THAN THE F.C.C., ONE
THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IF
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REPEALING
THE F.C.C.'S RULES WHAT IS THE
WORK PRODUCT OF THIS BODY.
TEST PEEL AND REPLACE, I THINK
THERE'S BEEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT, IN
FACT MR. STEARNS MENTIONED THAT
THE COMMITTEE MIGHT WORK ON
SOME OF THESE AREAS, WHAT IS
THAT PROPOSED BODY OF WORK.
WHY ARE WE NOT LOOKING AT
REPEAL AND REPLACE?
WHAT ARE WE REPLACING IT WITH?
IS IT SIMILAR TO CHAIRMAN
WAXMAN'S BILL OF LAST YEAR?
CAN WE DO BETTER?
I'M SKEPTICAL BUT IF THE
GENTLEMAN WOULD LIKE TO ADVANCE
THE WORK PRODUCT OF HIS
COMMITTEE AND COME FORWARD WITH
A CLEAR DECISION FOR WHAT WE'D
BE REPLACING IT WITH, I'D BE
OPEN TO SEEING IF THE WORK
PRODUCT OF THE COMMITTEE IS
BETTER THAN THE WORK PRODUCT OF
THE F.C.C. WITH REGARD TO THIS
MATTER.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FEY IS
RECOGNIZED.
WE HAVE NO MORE
SPEAKERS ON OUR SIDE IF THE
GENTLEMAN IS PREPARED TO CLOSE,
WE ARE PREPARED TO CLOSE.
WE HAVE NO MORE
SPEAKERS.
THE SWER NET HAS BEEN OF
IMMENSE VALUE TO MANKIND, TO
AMERICA, TO ME PERSONALLY AND
TO ALL OF US PERSONALLY.
IT'S CONTRIBUTED TO OUR
CULTURE, TO OUR ECONOMIC
ADVANCEMENT, TO THE FLOW OF
FREE IDEAS.
WE SHOULD NOT TRADE THE FREEDOM
OF THE INTERNET, THE FREEDOM OF
THE INTERNET AS AN OPEN,
SUPERHIGHWAY, FARRLE TO ROAD
CONTROLLED BY -- -- FOR A TOLL
ROAD CONTROLLED BY OTHERS.
TODAY'S ACTION SHORT CIRCUITS
THAT PRSESS -- PROCESS AND
IMPOSES A SHORTSIGHTED SOLUTION
ON WHAT IS A COMPLEX IDEA FOR
IMPOSING AN INTERMET FREE TO
HAVE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.
THE F.C.C. ORDER CAME CLOSE TO
STRIKING THAT BALANCE, WHICH IS
WHY IT'S SUPPORTED BY INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS AND FAITH
BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
AN OPEN INTERNET BY OPPOSING
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION AND THIS
RULE AND I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THERE'S A PROMO OUT THESE DAYS
FOR A NEW TELEVISION SHOW
COMING ON ABOUT THE C.I.A., IT
CHRONICLES A FELLOW'S FIRST DAY
ON THE JOB AT THE C.I.A., HE
WALKS IN, HE LOOKS AROUND HERB
CAN'T BELIEVE THE DISARRAY HE
SEES THERE.
AND HIS SENIOR ADVISOR THERE
STEPS UP AND HE SAYS, SON HAVE
YOU EVER WALKED INTO A POST
OFFICE AND SAID, MY GOSH, I'VE
STEPPED INTO THE FUTURE?
AND THE ANSWER IS NO.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE
LOCATION WHERE INNOVATION
THRIVES.
THEY HAVE THIS CONVERSATION
TODAY ABOUT HOW WE NEED
GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO
PROTECT THE INTERNET, MR.
SPEAKER, WE NEED TO PROTECT THE
INTERNET FROM GOVERNMENT
REGULATION.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY
WITH THIS UNDERLYING
RESOLUTION.
THIS F.C.C. PROPOSAL IS A
SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT
DOESN'T EXIST.
TO QUOTE MY FRIEND FROM
COLORADO, AS HE WAS QUOTING THE
INVESTMENT BANKS, THESE
OFFICIAL RULES ARE AROUND WHAT
IS ALREADY BEING DONE IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR.
IT'S A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM
THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
MR. SPEAKER, IT'S A SOLUTION TO
A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST
USE AUTHORITY THAT THE F.C.C.
DOES NOT HAVE.
IT'S INTERESTING BEING DOWN
HERE TODAY AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM
COLORADO TALKS ABOUT, ALL THE
BIG BUSINESSES THAT BOUGHT IN
AND THE INVESTMENT BANKS THAT
BOUGHT IN.
I DON'T GIVE TWO HOOTS THAT THE
BIG BUSINESS OR INVESTMENT
BANKS HAVE BOUGHT IN.
WE HEAR FROM THIS
ADMINISTRATION HOW THEY CAN
HELP, HOW THEY CAN HELP TO
SOLVE PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS THAT
EXIST AND APPARENTLY NOW
PROBLEMS THAT DON'T EXIST.
IF THE AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXIST
THEY CANNOT WITH BE ALLOWED TO
REGULATE IN THIS AREA.
SO WE HAVE A SOLUTION TO A
PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST
USING AUTHORITY THAT DOESN'T
EXIST.
WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US?
I WANT TO READ TO YOU, MR.
SPEAKER, FROM THE F.C.C. ORDER
DATED DECEMBER 21 OF LAST YEAR.
FINALLY, WE DECLINE TO APPLY
OUR RULES DIRECTLY TO COFFEE
SHOPS, BOOKSTORES, AIRLINES AND
OTHER ENTITIES THAT ACQUIRE
THEIR INTERNET SERVICE FROM A
BROADBAND PROVIDER.
THOUGH BROADBAND PROVIDERS THAT
OFFER SUCH SERVICES ARE SUBJECT
TO THE RULES WE NOTE THAT
ADDRESSING TRAFFIC IS A
LEGITIMATE NETWORK MANAGEMENT
PURPOSE FOR THESE PREMISE
OPERATORS.
THORGET THAT DOES NOT EXIST AND
THE F.C.C. SAYS IN ITS
BENEVOLENCE, IN ITS
BENEVOLENCE, THAT AT THIS TIME,
IT CHOOSES, IT CHOOSES, MR.
SPEAKER, NOT TO REGULATE THE
WAY THAT COFFEE SHOPS,
BOOKSTORES AND AIRLINES PROVIDE
INTERNET SERVICE TO THEIR
CUSTOMERS.
FOLKS, THIS IS THE CAMEL'S NOSE
UNDER THE TENT.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO BE
VIGILANT.
DOESN'T MATTER IF WE LIKE THE
UNDERLYING RULE, OR IF THE
AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXIST, MR.
SPEAKER.
WE ARE OBLIGATED AS ONE OF
THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT,
WE ARE OBLIGATED TO STEP IN
WHERE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
EXCEEDS ITS BOUNDS.
THE COURTS HAVE LOOKED AT THIS
DECISION AND DECIDED, AS WE
HAVE, THAT THE F.C.C. DOES NOT
AREA.
HAVE AUTHORITY TO ACT IN THIS
SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT
DOESN'T EXIST.
USING AUTHORITY THAT IT DOESN'T
HAVE.
THAT STARTS TO PAVE THE WAY TO
REGULATE COFFEE SHOPS, AIRLINES
AND BOOKSTORES.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS A SIMPLE
RULE FOR A SIMPLE BILL.
WE'VE TALKED SO MUCH ABOUT
2,000-PAGE BILLS WITH LOTS OF
HIDDEN CONSEQUENCE WE TALKED
ABOUT SECTION 1099 OF THE
HEALTH CARE ACT NOW BEING
REPEALED AND PASSED NOW BY THE
SENATE AND GOING ON TO THE
PRESIDENT'S DESK.
I WANT TO READ TO YOU THIS BILL
IN ITS SPIRITY IF YOU'LL PERMIT
ME THE TIME.
RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE
UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS
ASSEMBLED THAT CONGRESS
DISAPPROVES THE RULES COMMITTED
BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF
PRESERVING INTERNET AND
BROADBAND PRACTICES AND SUCH
RULES SHALL HAVE NO FORCE OR
EFFECT.
THAT'S IT.
EIGHT LINES.
NO FORCE OR EFFECT.
MR. SPEAKER, I URGE STRONG
SUPPORT OF MY COLLEAGUES OF
THIS RULE THAT WILL THEN BRING
TO THE FLOOR H.J.RES. 37 AND
ALLOW IN ITS BREVITY ITS
COMPLETE AN TOTAL CONVERSATION.
I YIELD BACK -- COMPLETE AND
TOTAL CONVERSATION.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
RESOE CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE
THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION.
THE HONORABLE THE
SPEAKER, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
SIR, I WRITE TO INFORM YOU THAT
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY I AM
RESIGNING FROM THE HOUSE