Net neutrality rules ensure an equal playing field on the web for everyone, from the start-up to the tech giant.
The Federal Communications Commission, where I have the pleasure of serving, generally has done a good job of providing an environment for Wi-Fi to flourish in the U.S.
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.
Energy and environmental regulation, transportation, and broadband policy all benefit when legislators have a basic grounding in the technical concepts behind business models, products, and innovation.
I think the Internet has developed at this incredibly rapid pace because of net neutrality, because of the free nature of it, because a YouTube can start the way YouTube started.
The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it.
Almost 85 percent of the Latin American market is subject to net neutrality rules, and the European Parliament already favors strong ones.
The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
From day one, the Internet was a public square, and the providers merely connected everyone, rather than regulating who spoke with whom. That allowed the Internet to evolve into a form of basic infrastructure, used by over a billion people today.
You shouldn't have an overbearing FCC. Let the market work itself. By allowing companies to compete in an unregulated forum, you're going to allow the faster deployment of new services and new equipment consumers are going to want.
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo should be developing new technologies to bypass government sensors and barriers to the Internet; but instead, they agreed to guard the gates themselves.
Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.
Political divisions may be fierce, but there is at least one issue that most Americans agree on: net neutrality.
The hope of Internet anarchists was that repressive governments would have only two options: accept the Internet with its limitless possibilities of spreading information, or restrict Internet access to the ruling elite and turn your back on the 21st century, as North Korea has done.
I am in favor of complete freedom of information and of free access to the new communication tools, in particular the Internet.
Experience has shown us that attempts to control the Internet will invariably fail. We should be instructed by the failed efforts of China to regulate political content, the efforts of America to regulate Internet gambling, or the efforts of Australia to regulate certain speech. By its very nature, the Internet will always resist such controls.
The Internet's distinct configuration may have facilitated anonymous threats, copyright infringement, and cyberattacks, but it has also kindled the flame of freedom in ways that the framers of the American constitution would appreciate - the Federalist papers were famously authored pseudonymously.
Today the Internet is run by private sector interests within the United States under the supervision of a nonprofit entity formed by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
A lack of government oversight hasn't hindered the Internet. Quite the opposite. A hands-off approach is largely responsible for its fantastic growth and success.
Simply put, broadband voice is an interstate matter that must be dealt with through clear national standards.
For years, members of Congress have heard from constituents who want them to protect the nation from crime, terrorism and intellectual property violation. They have not faced equally robust demands that online rights and freedoms be preserved.
Let's make sure that the Internet stays open to those who need it the most.
I think we should not control the Internet.
One of the great debates about the Internet is whether it is making people more or less free.
President Clinton got it right in 1996 when he established a free-market-based approach to this new thing called the Internet, and the Internet economy we have is a result of his light-touch regulatory vision.
