On the recordApril 5, 2011
I yield myself such time as I may consume. It's hard to know where to begin in refuting the arguments of my good friend from Tennessee. There were several comparisons that I view as simply out of hand. One of them that was given was that this is somehow some sort of Fairness Doctrine for the Internet, that this is somehow some sort of government involvement with the Internet. Quite the contrary is true. I want to be clear. I was an original cosponsor last session of the bill that proactively would have prevented the administration from moving forward with the Fairness Doctrine. I oppose the Fairness Doctrine. I believe in a dynamic marketplace of ideas. The FCC's rulemaking around net neutrality moved forward and fostered that very dynamic marketplace of ideas that the Fairness Doctrine is contrary to. If we do not have some sort of net neutrality regime in place, there will be a selective censorship of the Internet, and we risk the Internet deteriorating into a series of tiered structures, whether they are tiered economically or ideologically. The great human accomplishment that is the one common Internet will simply cease to exist as such. It is, in fact, the proponents of net neutrality and the regulatory regime proposed by the FCC after receiving input from all stakeholders that will preserve the Internet as it is. I would agree with my friend from Tennessee's argument. She said 80 percent of people are happy with their access. I hope it's even higher.
