Marvin Ammori Quotes

Washington faces a simple choice: allow the Internet to remain as an engine of innovation, a platform for speech in even the harshest tyrannies, and a unified connection for people across the globe—or cede control of the Internet to service providers motivated by their parochial interests.

Over the course of a year - from January 2014 to March 2015 - millions of Americans, hundreds of businesses, and dozens of policymakers weighed in at the Federal Communications Commission in favor of net neutrality.

We support an open Internet and having rules - the right kind of rules that are legally enforceable and allow for investment and innovation.

You do not need the government to protect open internet; the marketplace was doing it and will continue to do it. All you are doing is adding a burden that does not need to be there.

The question is not whether we want to keep this open, neutral Internet - we do, or should - but whether government rulemaking can give us the result we want.

The first legislation that I produced relating to the Internet was a bill to overturn a restriction inside of the law that prohibited the Internet backbone from being used for anything other than research and scientific and educational communication.

Net neutrality isn't a government takeover of the Internet, as many of my Republican colleagues have alleged.

I love it when these Internet dudes say to me, 'Hey man, we just want to be 'content neutral.'

network neutrality

We think of the Internet as a bottom-up phenomenon. There are people and countries that would like to treat it as a top-down institution; Americans resist that and I think rightfully so. It would cramp our style in terms of creativity, innovation, and so forth.

Without net neutrality protections, the Internet would no longer be a free and open ecosystem for innovation.

To go back to a 1950s voice mentality with Title II and net neutrality would be a tremendous mistake for our country.

The Open Internet principles were not legal rules adopted by the FCC; they were effectively a press statement posted on the FCC website.

In 2007, when I was a lawyer for the public interest group Free Press, I helped draft the complaint to the FCC against Comcast for secretly blocking BitTorrent and other technologies.

Political divisions may be fierce, but there is at least one issue that most Americans agree on: net neutrality.

The Internet belongs to all of us, not big telecom.

I think net neutrality needs to be explored in a broader sense.

Beginning in the Clinton administration, there was, for nearly two decades, a broad bipartisan consensus that the best Internet policy was light-touch regulation - rules that promoted competition and kept the Internet 'unfettered by federal or state regulation.' Under this policy, a free and open Internet flourished.

As president of Common Cause, I joined a coalition of groups ranging from the Christian Coalition to Consumers Union, and we went to Congress with over a million signatures asking that Net Neutrality be made law.

Net Neutrality is what makes the Internet so great - and so vital for innovation and creativity.

I think we should not control the Internet.

We need to make Net Neutrality the law. We need to elect a Congress that will make it a priority to keep this important principal intact - and insure equal and open access to the Internet for all.

The nature of the Internet and the importance of net neutrality is that innovation can come from everyone.

I fear that light touch regulations that have allowed the Internet to prosper will now be replaced by a heavy hand that stifles innovation and does not adapt well to change. The Internet is not broken.

Net neutrality is such an important principle for the Web and for the Internet. It's how the Internet's operated for all this time.