Network Discrimination Quotes

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

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

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.

Internet service providers should not be permitted to block, throttle and unfairly favor certain content, applications, services or devices.

Allowing a handful of broadband carriers to determine what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the features that have made the Internet such a success, and could permanently compromise the Internet as a platform for the free exchange of information, commerce, and ideas.

Evidence and economic theory suggests that control of the Internet by the phone and cable companies would lead to blocking of competing technologies.

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.

The FCC banned throttling for good reason, namely that Internet service providers should not bias their networks toward some applications or classes of applications. Biasing the network interferes with user choice, innovation, decisions of application makers, and the competitive marketplace.

Net Neutrality is Internet freedom.

Today, it’s the little guy who looks to be in danger. The Internet service providers—like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T—have long pushed to create “speed lanes” online. If you run a website and want to make sure your connection moves swiftly to the end user, you’d need to pay these companies an extra fee. If you don’t pay? Your signal might not move as fast as you’d like. The Federal Communications Commission this spring drafted rules that would allow for fast and slow lanes. If they take effect, it would be the end of “net neutrality” …

A ban on paid priority is central to any real net neutrality proposal, beginning with the Snowe-Dorgan Bill of 2006. Indeed, the notion of 'payment for priority' is what started the net neutrality fight.

Network neutrality protects the ability of users to access the lawful content, applications, and services of their choice. In other words, it lets users determine who wins and loses in the marketplace, and that's the way it should be.

'Network neutrality' is sometimes called 'Internet freedom' or 'Internet openness' and is a legal principle that would forbid cable and phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from blocking some websites or providing special priority to others.

Net-neutrality proponents howled when Comcast started throttling traffic from BitTorrent, a bandwidth-hogging program people use to swap video files. The Federal Communications Commission sided with the open-Internet folks, ruling that Comcast could not selectively choke off traffic.

With Net Neutrality, the level playing field that gave us Google, YouTube and eBay when they were start-ups would suddenly start to tilt in favor of the big, established players.

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.

Reclassification is the best way to for us to preserve the Internet as an unfettered tool for communication and the sharing of ideas.

If we didn't have Net neutrality, carriers could do things like penalize companies that use a lot of bandwidth or create high-speed lanes and charge Internet companies extra fees to send their stuff over them. That would give an advantage to big companies and make life harder for startups.