BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in opposition to the so-called Save the Internet Act. I say ``so- called'' because it really should be called another Big Government attempt to grab the internet act.
I am disappointed in my colleagues across the aisle who chose to place partisan politics above the interests of the American people and refused to work across party lines to codify actual workable solutions that prevent anticompetitive conduct rather than continuing the political game of information technology regulatory ping-pong under the guise of net neutrality.
Let me be clear, I support an open and free internet. However, this legislation doesn't do that.
What it would do is impose heavy-handed title II regulations on the internet, which is not only unnecessary, but would actually stall broadband deployment.
From 1996 to 2015, the internet was thriving. It grew at a rapid, unprecedented pace and enabled countless innovative technologies that Americans have come to rely on: connectivity for businesses, students to do their schoolwork, families and friends staying connected, telemedicine, and many other everyday conveniences.
However, it was under the Big Government grab of then-FCC Chairman Wheeler and the classification of broadband as a utility-style telecommunications service under title II that we saw a decline in broadband deployment and online innovation and investment.
This is a serious issue, particularly for geographically challenging, rural areas such as eastern and southeastern Ohio that already struggle with broadband deployment. The digital divide is very real, and we have a responsibility to provide solutions, not create additional barriers to employment, growth, and innovation.
Rural communities don't need or want higher costs and fewer options than they already have, and that is why I am opposed to this legislation. As I have stated before, the only saving the internet needs is from heavy-handed Washington regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this disingenuous legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT