Supporters will look at heres a look at the vote from earlier today. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner rosenworcel. Commissioner roarsen worsele ok. Commissioner rosenworcel ok. Net neutrality is internet freedom. I dissent from this rash decision to roll back Net Neutrality rules. I dissent from the corrupt process that has brought us to this point and i dissent from the contempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing this path today. This decision puts the federal Communications Commission on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of the american public. The future of the internet is the future of everything. That is because there is nothing in our commercial, social or civic lives that has been untouched by its influence or unmoved by its power. And here in the United States, our internet economy is the envy of the world. This is because it rests on a foundation of openness. That openness is revolutionary. It means you can go where you want and do what you want online without your broadband provider getting in the way or making choices for you. It means every one of us can create without permission, build community beyond geography, organize without physical constraints, consume content we want, when and where we want it, and share ideas, not just around the corner but across the globe. I believe it is essential that we sustain this foundation of openness and that is why i support Net Neutrality. Net neutrality has deep origins in Communications Law and history. In the era when communications meant telephony, every call went through and your phone company couldnt call off your call or edit the content of your conversations. This guiding principle of nondiscrimination meant you were in control of the connections you make. This principle continued as time advanced, technology changed, and Internet Access became the dial tone of the digital age. So it was 12 years ago when president george w. Bush was in the white house that this agency first put its Net Neutrality policies on paper. In the decade that followed, the f. C. C. Revamped and revised its Net Neutrality rules seeking to keep them current and find them a stable home in the law. In its 2015 order, the f. C. C. Succeeded because in the following year in a 184page opinion, the agencys Net Neutrality rules were fully and completely upheld in court. So our existing Net Neutrality policies have passed court muster. They are wildly popular, but today we wipe away this work, destroy this progress and burn downtimetested values that have made our internet economy the envy of the world. As a result of todays misguided action, our broadband providers will get extraordinary new powers. They will have the power to block websites, the power to throttle services, and the power to censor online content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor the internet traffic of those companies with whom they have a payforplay arrangement and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road. Now, our braushed providers will tell you they will never do these things. They say just trust us. But know this, they have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic. And now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead and do so. This is not good. Not good for consumers, not good for businesses, not good for anyone who connects and creates online. Not good for the democratizing force that depends on openness to thrive. Moreover, it is not good for American Leadership on the global stage of our new and complex Digital World. Im not alone with these concerns. Everyone from the creator of the worldwide web to religious leaders to governors and mayors of big cities and small towns to museums to actors, to actresses, to entrepreneurs and academics and activists have registered their upset and anger. They are reeling at how this agency could make this kind of mistake. They are wondering how it could be so tone deaf, and they are justifiably concerned that just a few unelected officials could make such a vars and farreaching decision about the future of the internet. So after erasing our Net Neutrality rules, what is left . What recourse do consumers have . Were told, dont worry. Competition will save us. But the f. C. C. s own data show that our broadband markets are not competitive. Half the households in this country have no choice of broadband provider. So if your broadband provider is blocking websites, you have no recourse. You have nowhere to go. Were told, dont worry. The federal trade commission will save us, but the f. T. C. Is not the Expert Agency for communications. It has authority under unfair and deceptive practices, but to evade f. T. C. Review, all any broadband provider will need to do is add new provisions to the fine print in its terms of service. In addition, it is both costly and impractical to report difficulties to the f. T. C. By the time the f. T. C. Gets around to addressing them in Court Proceedings or enforcement actions, its fair to assume that the startups and Small Businesses wrestling with discriminatory treatment could be long gone. Moreover, what little authority the f. T. C. Has is now under question in the courts. Were told, dont worry. State authorities will save us. But at the same time, the f. C. C. All but clears the field with sweeping preemption of anything that resembles state or local Consumer Protection. Its if the substance that got us to this point is bad, the process is even worse. Lets talk about the public record. The public has been making noise speaking up, raising a ralk us. We see it in the pro raising the ruck us. We see it in the protest, those how de today, and we see it has jammed our online comment system, filled our voicemails. It might be messy but whatever our disagreement is on this dieas, we have to agree thats democracy in happen and something we can all support. To date, nearly 24 million comments have been filed in this proceeding. There is no record in the history of this agency that has attracted so many filings. But theres something foul in this record. Two million comments features stolen identities. Half a million comments are from russian email addresses. 50,000 consumer complaints are inexplicably missing from the record. I think thats a problem. I think our record has been corrupted and our process for Public Participation lacks integrity. 19 state attorneys general agree. They have written us demanding we halt our vote until we investigate and get to the bottom of this mess. Identity theft is a crime under state and federal law, and while it is taking place, this agency has turned a blind eye to its victims and callously told our federal our fellow Law Enforcement officials it will not help. This is not acceptable. Its a stain on the f. C. C. And this proceeding. This issue is not going away. It needs to be addressed. Finally, i worry that this decision and the process that brought us to this point is ugly. Its ugly in the cavalier disregard this agency has demonstrated to the public, the contempt it has shown for citizens who speak up, and the sheer disdain it has for public opinion. Unlike its predecessors, this f. C. C. Has not held a single public hearing on Net Neutrality. There is no shortage of people who believe washington is not listening to their concerns, their fears, and their desires. Add this agency to that list. Now, i, too, am frustrated, but heres a twist. I hear you. I listen to what the callers to my office are saying. I read the countless individually written emails in my inbox, the posts online, and the very short and sometimes very long letters. And im not going to give up. And neither should you. If the arc of history is long, we are going to bend this toward a more just outcome in the courts, in congress, wherever we need to go to ensure that Net Neutrality stays the law of the land. Because if you are conservative or progressive, you benefit from internet openness. If you come from a small town or a big city, you benefit from internet openness. If youre a company or a nonprofit, you benefit from internet openness. If you are a startup or an established business, you benefit from internet openness. If you are a consumer or a creator, you benefit from internet openness. And if you believe in democracy, you benefit from internet openness. So lets persist, lets fight, lets not stop here or now. Its too important. The future depends on it. Chairman pai thank you, commissioner. The internet is the greatest free market innovation in history. Its changed the way we live, the way we play, the way we work, the way we learn, the way we speak. During my time at the f. C. C. , ive met with entrepreneurs in south dakota who started businesses. Ive met with doctors in ohio who have helped care for patients. Ive met with teachers in alaska whove educated their students. Ive met with farmers in missouri whove increased their crop yields, and i met with many more who have succeeded all because of the internet. As the internet has enriched my own life immeasurably. I set up a facetime call with my parents and kids, downloaded interesting podcasts, i ordered a burr ito, i managed my playoff bound fantasy football team. And as many of you might have seen, i tweeted. What is responsible for the Phenomenal Development of the internet . Well, certainly wasnt heavyhanded government regulation. Quite to the contrary. At the dawn of the commercial internet, president clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States to, and i quote, preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet unfettered by federal and state regulation. This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light touch regulation, americas private sector invested over 1. 5 trillion to build out fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. 28k modems gave way to gigabit fibers. Entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants and americas internet economy became the envy of the entire world. And this light touch approach was good for consumers too. In the free market free of permissionless innovation, Online Services blossomed. Within a generation, we have gone from email as the killer app to High Definition video streaming. Entrepreneurs and innovators guided the internet far better than the clumsy hand of internet government ever could have. But then in early 2015, the f. C. C. , under political pressure, jettisonned the successful bipartisan approach to the internet on express orders from the previous white house, the f. C. C. Scrapped the tried and true light touch regulation of the internet and replaced it with heavyhanded micro management it decided to subject the internet to utility style regulation, designed in maud bell. O govern this was a mistake. For one thing, there was nothing to solve. The internet was not broken. We were not living in some digital distaupia. To the contrary, the internet is perhaps the only thing in American Society that we can all agree has been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this solution hasnt worked. The main complaint consumers have about the internet is not and has never been that their Internet Service provider is blocking access to content. Its they dont have access at all or not enough competition. These regulations have ironically taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under title 2, investment in High Speed Networks has declined by billions of dollars. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the internet era. When there is less investment, that means fewer next Generations Networks are built. That means less access and less competition. That means fewer jobs for americans building those networks, and that means more americans are strand on the wrong side of the digital divide. The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet Service providers. They dont have the time, the money, or the lawyers to navigate a atlantic of complex rules. They dont get a lot of press, certainly not here in washington. But i personally visited some of them, from spencer municipal utilities in spencer, iowa, to Wave Wireless in parsons, kansas, i have personally spoken from more, to air Link Services in oklahoma, and so theres no surprise that the Wireless Service internet providers association, which represents very small fixed Wireless Companies which operate in rural and low Income Services found that they incured additional expense in complying with the title 2 rules, had delayed network expansion, delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules. Other small companies, too, have told the f. C. C. These regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail Fiber Network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying that the f. C. C. s heavyhanded rules affect our ability to find financing. Now remember, these are not the big guys. These are the small companies, the kinds of companies that are critical to providing a more competitive marketplace. These rules have also impeded innovation. One major company, for instance, reported that it put on hold the project to build out its outofhome wifi network due to uncertainty about the f. C. C. s regulatory stance. And a coalition of 19 municipal Internet Service broe advisers, that is city, governmentowned nonprofits have told the f. C. C. That they, and i quote, often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because they cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action. None of this is good for consumers. We need to empower all americans with digital opportunity. Not deny them the benefits of greater access and competition. And consider, too, that these are just the effects that these rules have had on the internet today. Think about how they will effect the internet we need 10, 20 years from now. The Digital World bears no resemblance to a water pipe or an electric line or sewer. The use of those pipes will be roughly constant over time. Very few would say that theres been dramatic innovation in these areas. By contrast, online traffic is expleading, and we consume exponentially more data and traffic over time. With the dawn of internet of things, with the high bit applications like Virtual Reality, with new activities we cant fully grasp yet like high volume bit coin mining, were imposing demands over the network and over time that means our networks themselves ill need to scale too. On the advice of security we need to take a brief recess. Everyone, i need everyone to leave everything that you have in place. Do not take anything out of here except for your body. O not take anything. Just your body. We will call everybody back in once we clear the room. Thank you. Chairman pai sorry for the interruption. We can now reconvene. Where was i . Consider, too, that these are just the effects that our rules have had on the internet of today. Think about how they will affect the internet we need 10, 20 years from now. The Digital World wears no resemblance to a water pipe or electric line or sewer. The use of those pipes will be roughly constant over time and very few would say theres dramatic innovation in those areas. By contrast, online traffic is exploding, and with the dawn of the internet of things, the development of high bit applications like virtual realities, with new activities we cant grasp like high bit coin mining, we are imposing demands on the network. Over time that means the networks themselves will have to scale too, but they dont have to. If our rules deter the massive Infrastructure Investment that we need, eventually well pay the price in terms of less innovation. Consider these words from ben thompson, a highly respected Technology Analyst from a post on his blog supporting my proposal. Its an extended quote but with your indulgence its important. The questions that must be grabbled with is whether or not the internet is done. By that i mean that todays bandwidth is all well ever mean which means we can chill investment through prophylactic elimination and price signals that may spur infrastructure buildout. If we are done, then the potential harm of a title 2 reclassification is much lower. Sure, i. S. P. s will have to do more paperwork but honestly they are just a bunch of mean mow nop lists anyways, right . Best get laws in place to preserve what we have. But what if we arent done . At if Virtual Reality with 8k displays were imaginable . Or what if the internet of things moves beyond this messy experimentation phase and into realtime Value Generation . Not just in the home but in all kinds of unimagined commercial applications . I certainly hope we will have the bandwidth to support all of that. I do too. And as thompson put it in another post, and, again, i quote. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence that harm exists in the sort of systematic way that justifies heavily regulating i. S. P. s. The evidence does suggest that current regulatory structures handle bad actors perfectly well. The only fear the only future to fear is th