Telecommunications Regulation Quotes

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.

Government must start to look at mobile infrastructure as a critical national resource and not just a resource for tax dollars.

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

Any country that wants to lower its mobile phone rates, all they need to do is bring in an aggressive player.

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

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

In addition to dealing with call spoofing and robocalls with acts like the Robocall Enforcement Enhancement Act, the American people require a larger scale approach.

In 1970, there was a single telephone company in the United States called AT&T, and its technology was called circuit switching, and that was all any telecom engineer worried about.

Seriously, we are in the midst of the convergence of voice and data and that is challenging the infrastructure of the telephone companies. There are huge commercial interests in the basic technology, but even more so in content delivery and control of content.

Not all traffic is created equal. In the 5G future, mission-critical apps such as remote surgery will have to take priority over other traffic. There will need to be a regulatory regime that allows the service provider to create services that are differentiated based on user experiences.

Cable and satellite businesses are competing against fixed-line telephone companies and wireless companies.

President Obama's FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has a reputation in D.C. of being a 'tepid' regulator. From reports of his net neutrality proposal, he's living up to that reputation.

While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a 'right' to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of 'universal service' - the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available, even in the most remote regions of the country.

The FCC on any given day has much more influence than the better known agencies like the entire Department of Health and Human Services.

Next time you open the paper, and you see an intellectual property decision, a telecoms decision, it's not about something small and technical. It is about the future of the freedom to be as social beings with each other, and the way information, knowledge and culture will be produced.

Carrier networks were originally built for connecting phone calls. Now they're getting swamped with bandwidth-hogging data applications. Keeping up will require huge investments. Who's going to pay for that?

When the government picked companies and gave them monopoly rights to frequencies in San Francisco and Los Angeles and New York and Chicago, it was picking the winners of the competition; it wasn't setting the terms of the competition.

I was fascinated with the phone system and how it worked; I became a hacker to get better control over the phone company.

Almost everything the FCC does is challenged in court. There is no clean solution because we have a Communications Act that wasn't written for broadband.

All of us salute the ITU's excellent work in the telecommunications space. It has set standards which encourage investment in infrastructure and ensure that a call made from Europe or America connects smoothly in Kenya or anywhere in the world.

I'm not really sure what I'd like to see people doing more of online, but what I'd like to see less of is the warning signs that not ratifying net neutrality is gonna cause two separate nets: one that the big dogs can afford to be on and the other a ghetto internet that no one goes on. Think FM vs AM radio, or cable vs broadcast TV.

We should be careful and deliberate in how we allow public entry into our vibrant communications marketplace... This is an issue that should be left to our states.

There is no lack of profitability or investment among these telecommunications companies. There is nothing that an open-internet order did to them that diminished their success.

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

Broadband Internet access service is inherently an interstate service, and that is not a determination that just the FCC has made.