'This Is Frightening'

" Right now people are getting more and more of their information on the Internet. In newspapers television. Blogs. Radio. Americans are getting all of it on -- plays a central role in our democracy. By allowing anyone with a computer. Connected to the Internet to publish. There -- ideas -- thoughts. -- opinions and reach a worldwide. Audience of hundreds of millions of people in seconds. This is free speech. And this is essential to our democracy. And to democracy we saw this in Iran. Not long ago. Not judge. You're familiar -- news the supreme court's 2005. Brand X decision if I -- Well then you know the brand acts. Deregulated. Internet access services allowing service providers act as gatekeepers. To the Internet even though. The Internet was originally government funded and built. On the notion of common carriage. And openness. In fact we've already seen examples of these companies blocking access to the web and discriminating on certain uses of the Internet. This trend threatens to undermine the greatest engine of free speech and commerce since the printing press. Let's say your living -- Duluth Minnesota and you only have one Internet service provider. The big mega corporation. And not only they the only Internet service provider but they're also content provider. They provide they own newspapers say. Our own TV. Networks -- Or network. They have a movie studio. They decide to speed up. Their own content and slow down other content. The brand X decision by the Supreme Court allows them to do this. And this isn't. Just to -- fits. Morehead Minnesota is in Rochester Minnesota it's Youngstown Ohio. It's -- Denver at San Francisco. And yes. It's New York. This is frightening. Frightening to me. And to millions. Of my constituency. -- Internet connections use public resource. The public Airways public rights of way. Doesn't the American public have a compelling First Amendment interest. In ensuring that this can't happen. And that the Internet stays open and accessible in other words that the Internet. --"

" Many."

" Described the telephone -- revolutionary. Invention. And it did change. Our country dramatically. -- television. And it's regulation of television in the rules that would apply to it were. Considered. By congress. And those regulations. -- because how congress is the policy choose here. On how items related to interstate commerce in communications."

" Operate. And that -- to."

" Was reviewed by the courts in the context that the policy choices. Congress me. There is no question in my mind as a citizen. That the Internet has revolutionize. Communications in the United States. "

" And there's no question in."

" That access to that. It's a question that society is that -- citizens this -- this yourself are concerned about. But the role of the court is an effort to make the policy -- to wait -- congress acts. And then determine. What congress has done in its message and constitutionality. In light of that ruling. Brand exercise. Understood it. It was a question of which. Government agency. Would regularly. Those providers."

" And the court looking at congress -- Legislation. In these two areas."

" Determined that it thought it fit in one box not the other one agency instead of another. This title one entitled to. Or. As I understand -- title to his very good news subject to a lot of regulation hey I don't want isn't. Exactly but. The question was not so much stronger regulation or not stronger regulation it was -- Set of regulations given congress' choice control. Obviously. Congress may think that the regulations the court. Has it it's holding. Interpret it congress' intent. And that congress thinks the court got it wrong we're talking about statutory interpretation. And Congress's ability to -- the court's understanding. By. Amending the statute if it chooses this is not to say that I minimize the concerns you expressed. Access to Internet given its importance and everything today most businesses depend on its most individuals find their information. The children in my life virtually live on it now. And so its importance implicates a lot of different questions freedom of speech. Freedom with respect to property rights government regulation and their -- so many issues that get. Implicated by the Internet. That. The what the court can do is not choose the policy it just has to go -- of interpreting each statute in trying to figure out what congress intends."

" I understand that that isn't there a compelling. First Amendment. Right here. People matter what congress does and I would urge my -- thanks to take this up and and right. Legislation that I would like. But. -- there are a compelling overriding. First Amendment right here for Americans have access to the Internet."

" Rights."

" By a court or not -- that has overriding. In the sense that I think -- citizen and and not or."

" A citizen with think about it. Should this still first or -- did competing right -- second. Right -- right so what the court -- is how congress balance those rights in a particular situation. And then judges where that whether that balances within constitutional. Boundaries. Only one more compelling than the other suggests that they are sort of -- property interest or less important than First Amendment interest. That's not the comparison to court makes comparison court makes starts with. But balance of congress choose first. And then we'll look at that at it and see if its constitution. Okay so we got some work to do -- I want to get into."