releases: https://doyle.house.gov/press-release/doyle-statement-net-neutrality-new-america-forum
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://doyle.house.gov/press-release/doyle-statement-net-neutrality-new-america-forum | Doyle Statement on Net Neutrality at New America Forum | 2017-12-05 | 2017 | 2017-12 | Democrat | House | PA | Mike Doyle | D000482 | doyle.house.gov | legacy | Washington, DC – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA-14) spoke about the importance of Net Neutrality at a forum held earlier today at New America in Washington, DC. The complete text of his remarks follows below. “Good morning. I’m pleased to be here today to talk about one of the most important issues before policymakers today. Net Neutrality and its fate is a topic critical to our personal lives, our civil society, and our nation’s economic future. “I’d like to thank the New America Foundation and the Open Technology Institute for hosting this event and putting this excellent panel together. I’d also like to thank our hosts for inviting me to speak to you today. “I, like many of you, have been working on this issue for over a decade. And like many of you, I had hoped that this issue had been resolved by the US Court of Appeals decision last year to uphold the FCC’s rules. However, that’s not the case, and we are once again contemplating the way forward on Net Neutrality – and what an Open Internet means. “Chairman Pai and his allies among the ISPs and conservative think tanks have alleged that the end of the Open Internet really means business as usual – and that the Internet we have come to know and love, or love to hate, will continue to hum along as usual. The Chairman and his allies have said that all they are doing is returning the Internet to a quote un-quote “light touch regulatory framework.” We see this phrase used a lot when describing the proposed changes to the Open Internet order. The Chairman and his allies say that they are returning the Internet to the regulatory framework that allowed it to flourish before Chairman Wheeler put the Open Internet Order in place in 2015. “It sounds reasonable, in a way. Unfortunately, the Chairman, like so many people these days, is dealing in alternative facts. I’d like to correct the record a bit about where we are and how we got here. The history of Net Neutrality and the formation of the Open Internet Order isn’t something that was conjured into existence out of nowhere. “The rules that Tom Wheeler put in place were direct responses to actions taken by ISPs to limit, impede, or interfere with consumers’ broadband experience. To be honest, actions by ISPs are the reason we have Net Neutrality rules at all. Before that, we had rules in place to limit what phone and cable companies could do with the information we entrusted them with – and the services they provided to us. ISP’s anti-consumer and anti-competitive actions over the years are what prompted the FCC to adopt Open Internet Order. “Republicans and Democratic FCC Chairs have recognized these basic facts going back to Chairman Powell in 2004 and his speech about preserving Internet Freedom. He identified four freedoms, the freedom of consumers to access the legal content of their choice, the freedom to run the applications of their choice, the freedom to attach any devices of their choice to the Internet, and meaningful transparency about the their service plans. Pretty basic stuff. Chairman Martin would adopt these four freedoms a year later. Case closed, end of story, the Internet is saved. I honestly wish that’s where this all ended. “The question is what happened to these freedoms, and why weren’t they enough? More to the point, why wasn’t their legal justification under Title One of the Communications Act not enough? “Back in 2005 the Internet was really just the world wide web. Sites like Google, Facebook, and Amazon were still tiny. Most of what the Internet offered didn’t compete with voice and video offerings from the ISPs. But that started to change, and a small company called Vonage started offering Voice over the Internet phone service that directly competed with an ISP’s own offerings. So the ISP blocked Vonage – and claimed that because it owned the network, it was legal for it to block a competing service. VOIP was just blocked. It seems crazy, but to put that into context, ISPs at the time proposed limiting consumer’s ability to use WiFi, calling it theft of service. “The FCC was able to use its authority at the time to resolve Voneage’s issue. But unbeknownst to many, another ISP started blocking the popular peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol Bit Torrent. Thanks to investigations by public interest groups and technical experts this was discovered in 2007. Then-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin tried to sanction the ISP, to try and get it to stop blocking this new technology – but his decision was overturned in federal court. The court found that the Commission lacked the authority under Title One of the Communications Act to enforce its policy statement. “In 2010, under Chairman Genachowski, the FCC was once again faced with how it could prevent what had been considered anti-competitive ISP behavior by both Democratic and Republican FCC Chairs. At the time, several of my colleagues and I, as well as many in the public interest community, called on Chairman Genachowski to reclassify broadband as a Title 2 service in order to give his rules firmer legal footing. “During this time between 2007 and 2009, the iPhone was just hitting the market, and the historically “walled garden” of the mobile internet was starting to crumble. Despite the iPhone’s clear capability, as well that of mobile broadband networks of the time, a major mobile carrier blocked people’s ability to use Skype, Google Voice, and other competing internet phone services on their devices. These services clearly competed with wireless carriers’ own phone services. “I hope some of you are recognizing a pattern here, a pattern of ISPs acting in anti-competitive ways to force consumers to use the ISPs’ more expensive, non-competitive services over those of their new competitors. “In 2010, the FCC adopted actual Open Internet rules, but still using Title One of the Communications Act. And while these rules were a victory, as the panel and many here know, they wouldn’t stand the test of time. “Between 2010 and 2014, ISPs would go on to hijack user’s search queries away from Google, Yahoo, and Bing to the ISPs’ own chosen search providers. Several mobile ISPs blocked access to Google Wallet, Google’s mobile payment service, because they were developing their own competing services. ISPs blocked users from using Apple’s FaceTime calling app. ISPs have and still continue to require users to pay additional fees to share their mobile internet connection with other devices. Another mobile carrier blocked users from streaming video on their devices. “Again and again, we see ISPs blocking new services and applications that compete with them or in any way threaten their business model. “When the courts struck down Genachowski’s rules, the FCC was forced to go back to the drawing board again, under Chairman Wheeler in 2014. At the time Netflix customers were starting to complain that the service was being degraded, and they accused ISPs of deliberately throttling the points of interconnection where a Netflix video crosses from Netflix’s network onto the ISP’s own network. Netflix alleged at the time that ISPs wanted exorbitant fees to end this slow down. At the time, Netflix was a major player in the over the top market, but it was one of only a few that were offering full-run video content that competed for ISP customers. As more consumers were considering cutting the cord and dropping their cable subscriptions, the viability of services like Netflix was a major consideration. If a consumer couldn’t depend on being able to access over the top content, it couldn’t be a viable competitive option. “In the midst of all of this, the FCC again debated the merits of Title Two or Title One as a legal justification for its rules. The fact is, that there just appeared to be no legally sufficient way to enforce rules under Title One. So instead of putting in place un-enforceable rules that would fail again under legal challenge, Chairman Wheeler acted to codify legally enforceable rules meant to address the harms that had occurred and were occurring. “I’m sorry for this historical retelling, but I think it’s important context for where we are and how we got here. “Chairman Pai keeps saying that all he is doing is turning back the clock to 2015, but really he is turning the clock back to zero. The order that he has proposed leaves in place no rules and no authority to address bad behavior. “He claims that the FTC can prevent ISP bad behavior by holding them to their terms and conditions, but ISPs are already scrubbing promises to adhere to Net Neutrality from these agreements – and openly discussing the merits of paid of prioritization and fast lanes. At this moment, the FTC’s jurisdiction over ISPs is in serious legal jeopardy. “I want to take a moment and recap the technologies and services that ISPs have blocked, throttled, or otherwise tried to impede: streaming video from sites like Netflix, Apple’s Facetime, Skype, Google search, mobile payment services, WiFi, peer to peer applications, the mobile internet, and apps. I just want to add that at one point a mobile ISP charged consumers five dollars a month if they wanted to use a mapping application. At the time Google Maps was available for free, but consumers had to use the ISP’s own product and pay for it. “Why am I concerned about a future without Net Neutrality? Because, if the past is any indication, the future is not bright. Consumers, innovators, and competitors are going to get the raw end of the deal. One of the best parts of the Internet ecosystem is that entrepreneurs have the ability to create something new, and make it available to the public. The public can embrace or ignore these innovations as they see fit. So while I may think bit-coin is a crazy bubble or question the utility of the President’s tweets, these are platforms and technologies that are driven by consumer adoption and not by whether some arbitrary gatekeeper sees them as a threat to their current or future business model. “The threat as I see it, is not as great to big businesses like Google, Facebook, and Amazon – although there is a threat to a them; it’s to small companies and new technologies. In Pittsburgh we are leading the way in fields such as artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles, smart city technologies, and robotics. So many of these technologies live on the Internet and rely on “Always On” connectivity. “My concern is that these new technologies will be the next generation to be impeded and co-opted. Cities like Pittsburgh don’t need our smart cities or self-driving cars brought to us by X or Y ISP. But ISPs are a critical conduit through which these new technologies will function. As we look at what technologies will define the 21st Century, I for one am deeply concerned that the ones we are fostering in my city will be among those threatened by an end to Net Neutrality. “I’m currently circulating a letter to my colleagues in the House, asking Chairman Pai to delay voting on order to repeal the Open Internet Rules. As advocates, experts, and grassroots organizers, I encourage you to reach out to Members of the House and ask them to join me in calling for a delay. “Regardless of what happens on December 14th, this fight is not over. As so many of you have done before and will continue to do, we will continue to bring to light this issue and work for strong enforceable rules that protect consumers, protect innovation, protect free speech, and protect the free and open internet. “Again thank you for inviting me, and I hope this panel has a fruitful discussion.” ### | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |