John T. Chambers Quotes

The FCC should facilitate, rather than frustrate, 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 Open Internet principles were not legal rules adopted by the FCC; they were effectively a press statement posted on the FCC website.

The United States needs modern, flexible, light-touch network regulation, not a one-size-fits-all utility model from the 1930s.

I support greater access to the Internet, but going back to Obama-era regulations is not the answer.

Net neutrality rules have been premised on the incentives and ability of ISPs to engage in harmful conduct, not actual harms. I don't believe we should be regulating based on hypothetical problems.

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

Although the FCC has tried to introduce net neutrality rules to avoid abusive practices like favoring your own services over others, they have struggled because there has been more than one court case in which it was asserted the FCC didn't have the authority to punish ISPs for abusing their control over the broadband channel.

AT&T will not block access to the public Internet or degrade service, period.

The FCC has made it clear it would punish a cable or phone company for deviating from providing 'neutral' access.

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

Notably, the FCC fact sheet regarding the net neutrality plan does not mention any accommodations for small providers.

I think there wouldn't be a Net neutrality debate in this country if we really had a competitive environment for access.

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 originally referred to management of the 'last mile' of the network over which data flows into a person's home, but the debate has grown beyond that in recent years.

At its core, the FCC's plan to regulate the Internet will force businesses and people to check first with the government and get permission to innovate.

My legislation provides that Net Neutrality rules would have 'no force or effect' and prohibits similar rules from being published or re-issued.

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

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.

Almost 85 percent of the Latin American market is subject to net neutrality rules, and the European Parliament already favors strong ones.

Even though the Internet touches every part of our lives, one person is to blame for potentially destroying its potential for innovation and freedom of expression: former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

While repealing net neutrality rules grabs headlines... net neutrality started as a consumer issue but soon became a stepping stone to impose vastly more common carrier regulation on broadband companies.

I think there's a short-term legislative strategy. I think there's a longer-term legislative strategy in terms of enshrining net neutrality principles into law rather than a rule, and I think there's an election strategy.

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