Marvin Ammori Quotes

The Open Internet principles were not legal rules adopted by the FCC; they were effectively a press statement posted on the FCC website.

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.

I think it was a major mistake to revisit Title II.

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

Some claim that the Obama FCC's regulations are necessary to protect Internet openness. History proves this assertion false. We had a free and open Internet prior to 2015, and we will have a free and open Internet once these regulations are repealed.

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.

They say I am a regulator and I think it is just an effort not to comply with the decree. I do not do anything except what the decree requires me to do.

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

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 CEO of AT&T told an interviewer back in 2005 that he wanted to introduce a new business model to the Internet: charging companies like Google and Yahoo! to reliably reach Internet users on the AT&T network.

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

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

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.

A regulator is supposed to create and enforce a standard.

Rules designed for the Ma Bell monopoly during the era of rotary phones were a poor fit for the greatest innovation of our time, the Internet.

We are now in a situation in which we will have to rely on market forces to maintain a free and open Internet. And nobody really knows whether that will work or not. One thing we do know is we didn't need to do this to ourselves. This was a solution in search of a problem.

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.

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

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.

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

In the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the FCC strengthened its transparency rule so that Internet service providers must make public more information about their network management practices. They are required to make this information available either on their own website or on the FCC's website.

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

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 significant regulatory impact of reclassifying broadband services is not something that should be taken lightly and should not be done without additional direction from Congress.