Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTE EXPLANATION ON H.R. 1644
______
HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Friday, April 12, 2019
Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, I voted against H.R. 1644
because it could open Internet Service Providers (ISP's) in rural areas
to burdensome regulations that stifle innovation and slow the
deployment of efficient and reliable broadband internet service. I
would like to take this opportunity to discuss my vote.
A free and open internet is critically important, but heavy-handed
regulation is not the only way to achieve net neutrality. I support the
important concepts of no blocking, no throttling, and no paid
prioritization and have cosponsored legislation to support this
including: The Promoting Internet Freedom and Innovation Act of 2019
(H.R. 1096), the Open Internet Act of 2019 (H.R. 1006), and ACCESS
BROADBAND Act (H.R. 1328.)
Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, designating
broadband as a Title I Information Service and subjecting it to a
``light touch'' regulatory system. As a result, the internet
transformed into one of the most important drivers of economic growth
and job creation.
In 2015, the Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) reclassified the internet as a Title II Telecommunications
Service, implementing heavy regulations and reporting requirements
originally intended for rotary landline phones. This action led to a
$3.6 billion decline in broadband investment; the first period of
declining investment in the internet era. In 2017, the Trump FCC
reversed the order to return the internet to its original light touch
framework.
H.R. 1644 would bring back the heavy-handed regulation and government
control of the internet. The measure would lock in approximately 700
unpublished rules that have not been shared with Members of Congress,
some of which would allow the FCC to set rates, impose new taxes,
approve the deployment of new technologies, and dictate how internet
companies interact with their customers. The internet has thrived
without government intervention and should continue to do so.
Most importantly, I have heard from many small internet service
providers in West Virginia that the reclassification forced them to
comply with extensive rules. These rules require them to write new
policies, take money, and employee time to complete verifications on
prioritization that they were not capable of engaging in to begin with.
This bureaucracy is not only incredibly burdensome to small businesses,
but it drives vital resources away from the deployment of broadband
internet service in rural areas that need it most.
Lacking broadband service is more than an inconvenience, it is a
barrier to education, connectivity, and economic growth. It is my hope
that we can arrive at a permanent bipartisan solution that protects
consumers, encourages innovation, and preserves an open internet.
Unfortunately, this bill does not accomplish that.
I am hopeful that we can come to a bipartisan solution in good faith.
The state of West Virginia is blessed with beautiful mountains and
heavily forested land. However, the geography that makes our state so
special also poses unique challenges in deploying internet technology.
____________________