Daniel Lyons Quotes

A rule against paid fast lanes would encourage additional capacity; a rule permitting paid fast lanes would simply encourage cable companies to create congested slow lanes on the Internet so they could make money by selling fast lanes to big companies.

If I see anything remotely like a telcom-run faster internet that you have to pay more to get preferential traffic on, I'm out folks. I've seen this story before, I ran an ISP back in the late 90s.

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

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” …

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

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 the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently - say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes.

Any 'network neutrality' rule should be designed to forbid phone or cable companies from controlling the Internet.

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

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.

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.

Without network neutrality, cable and phone companies could stifle innovation.

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

Net Neutrality is Internet freedom.

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.

In the Internet world, both ends essentially pay for access to the Internet system, and so the providers of access get compensated by the users at each end. My big concern is that suddenly access providers want to step in the middle and create a toll road to limit customers' ability to get access to services of their choice even though they have paid for access to the network in the first place.

An overly expansive virtual 'toll' for the Internet that blocks consumers' and competitors' access to the e-commerce superhighway is not the right answer.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

If net neutrality goes away, it will fundamentally change everything about the Internet.

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