BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DOYLE. I rise in opposition to the Walden amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the FCC's Open Internet Order brings certainty and clarity to a debate that has raged on for almost a decade, allowing Internet service providers as well as edge and content providers to fully focus on broadband investment, innovation, and other pressing business matters. In fact, broadband providers like AT&T, Time Warner and Comcast have all expressed support for the rules and have indicated that the FCC has achieved a balanced result. Wall Street investment analysts have also concluded that the FCC's Open Internet Order removed any regulatory overhang for telecom and cable companies and reflected a ``light touch'' version of regulation that will not hinder growth and innovation.
At the end of the day, the FCC's rules simply maintain the status quo principles that most broadband providers have already embraced. The rules preserve a number of existing business models for broadband providers to pursue as well as paving the way for new innovative offerings. Contrary to the claims by opponents of the FCC, these high level ``rules of the road'' do not allow the agency to micromanage broadband providers. They balance clarity with flexibility. And they don't require broadband providers to seek permission from the commission before deploying a network management practice. In fact, the rules specifically recognize the unique network management challenges across different platforms and afford broadband providers the latitude they need to manage their networks effectively.
Some opponents of the FCC argue that we don't need any rules in this area because antitrust laws are sufficient. But antitrust remedies occur after harm occurs. These rules, in contrast, allow companies and innovators regulatory certainty, a key component that allows businesses to thrive.
Mr. Chairman, the FCC's open Internet rules are just these three simple promises:
One to consumers--that we can visit any Web site we want, using any service we want, on any device we want.
Two for innovators--that they can create new tools without getting permission from the government or the company that the consumers use to get online.
Three--that we provide a cop on the beat to make sure that both sides are doing what they're supposed to and to be a neutral arbitrator. That's all this does.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It represents bad process and bad policy, and it should be rejected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT