Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
At the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Net Neutrality
June 14, 2006
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today
on the important issue of ensuring competition in our communications
laws.
I hope that the Judiciary Committee will make this hearing
one of a series addressing consumer and competition concerns in the
telecommunications field. There are a number of significant issues
we should look at, such as media consolidation, preemption of state
rights, and anticompetitive practices in the radio and concert industries.
In fact, as I think about the issue of Internet competition, it makes
a lot of sense to me to consider it through the lens of the problems
with the radio and concert industries that I have been concerned about
for some time.
Ten years on, the radio and concert industries have
not recovered from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which I opposed.
The massive consolidation that resulted from that law took a toll
on the local flavor of radio, and it also allowed the problem of payments
for airplay, or “payola,” to reemerge. Within the radio
industry, payola effectively created a two-tiered system of the labels
and artists with the resources to purchase airtime under the table
and those who could not or would not. Consumers looking for diversity
and localism were the big losers.
I see a parallel situation potentially developing if
we allow Internet access providers to create another pay-for-play
system and become de facto gatekeepers to the Internet. Without a
non-discrimination requirement, certain websites on the Internet could
gain an unfair advantage. For example, the major record labels and
music stores might be able to pay what the broadband providers demand
to prioritize their music distribution, while smaller rivals might
not. The independent labels and musicians who have found a niche on
the Internet after consolidation and payola drove them from radio
could again face an unfair pay-for-play system. Moreover, without
protections, Internet users could have fewer choices as only those
content providers who could afford to pay the corporate toll-keepers
would be able to offer a competitive level of service. We need to
make sure that the Internet retains its crucial role as an open forum
for the free exchange and dissemination of information.
While antitrust protections such as net neutrality’s
non-discrimination concept might not be needed if we had truly competitive
markets, the current landscape, which amounts to an emerging duopoly,
does not meet this threshold. Perhaps this will change if WiFi, municipal
broadband or other technologies become widely available and competitively
priced, but for the time being the principle of non-discrimination
is a very important one. I also understand that there are legitimate
reasons for broadband providers to prioritize one type of data over
another to manage their network efficiently. I support the core net
neutrality proposals I have seen that allow for this legitimate management
of the network, while preserving the basic principle of equal access
to the Internet.
