WASHINGTON, D.C. - Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, delivered the following opening statement at a hearing this morning to discuss H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008:
"Good Morning.
Today's hearing is on legislation offered by myself and subcommittee
colleague Mr. Pickering, entitled the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of
2008 (H.R. 5353).
"Since the beginning of this Congress - indeed since our
first subcommittee witness, the inventor of the World Wide Web Sir Tim
Berners-Lee testified - we've held a series of hearings that have given us a
glimpse of the future of the Internet.
We heard testimony from Chad Hurley, the founder of YouTube, as well as
from top executives from TiVo, RealNetworks, Sling Media, and others. The
commercial success of many of these companies, and their future business plans,
are predicated upon openness in the Internet's architecture and the freedom to
innovate that has marked the Internet since its inception.
"Sir Tim, the inventor of the World Wide Web, urged us to ‘make
sure the Web itself is the blank sheet, the blank canvas, something that does
not constrain the innovation around the corner.'
"The wonderful thing about the Internet, Sir Tim also
reminded us, is that no one needs to ask anyone's permission to innovate, to
get their voice heard, to launch a new service or business enterprise. In this sense, it is the most level playing field for
commercial opportunity ever invented. And its world-wide scope has
helped to foster community and cultural communications across the planet.
"Yet now we are faced with a choice. Can we preserve this
wildly successful medium and the freedom it embodies, or do we permit network
operators to fundamentally alter how the Internet has historically
functioned? Do we retain a level playing
field - Sir Tim's ‘blank canvas' - for entrepreneurial entry, or do we allow
the imposition of new fees and the artificial creation of slow lanes and fast
lanes for content providers on the Internet?
"Some people might ask, ‘Well, at $500 a share, why can't
Google pay for special treatment?' The
reality is that at $500 a share Google can afford to pay. Yet the reality is
that this is precisely the wrong question to ask. Instead, the question is
whether Larry Page and Sergei Brin - the two young founders of Google, could
have paid when they were mere grad students launching their idea.
"Same question for Jerry Yang of Yahoo back in the late
1990s, or Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com, or Marc Andreessen, who invented the Mosaic
browser - which later became Netscape - when he was at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign in the early 90s. That's the question to ask.
"And the answer, of course, is ‘no'
- those inventors and entrepreneurs could not have created the companies that
have become part of Internet lore if they had had to pay cable or phone
companies large sums of money up front just to get access to consumers.
"This debate is not over whether carriers can or cannot
perform network management. It is not
about whether carriers can fight piracy, or spam, or help parents with content
controls. It is not about whether some
network traffic, such as emergency communications, can be prioritized. Neither is it about whether ‘network
neutrality' is synonymous with ‘copyright theft.' It is not, and the
legislation only extends Internet freedom principles to lawful content. All of
these things have been done for years and are being done today without
problems.
"The question is whether in the name of network management,
policymakers permit carriers to act in unreasonable, anti-competitive
fashion. In a more perfect network,
there would be such massive bandwidth to render these issues moot. In a more
perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors
offering consumers ample choice.
"But until then, I strongly believe we should enshrine basic
principles of openness and fairness and ensure that the FCC is a ‘cop on the
beat' able to ensure these principles are upheld in the marketplace. In this way we can preserve the best of what
the Internet is even as it evolves.
"The bill is quite straightforward. It establishes overarching principles, rather
than regulations, to guide policy in this area.
It then it requests an examination of the market and current practices,
requires the FCC to hold several broadband summits around the country to
solicit suggestions and opinion, and finally, tasks the FCC with reporting the
results and any recommendations back to Congress. I believe this is an eminently reasonable path
to pursue and I thank all of our witnesses for coming today to give us their
views on the bill. Thank you."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 6, 2008 |
CONTACT: Jessica Schafer, 202.225.2836
|
|