Rick Boucher Quotes

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.

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

We support an open Internet and having rules - the right kind of rules that are legally enforceable and allow for investment and innovation.

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

Even though the Internet touches every part of our lives, one person is to blame for potentially destroying its potential for innovation and freedom of expression: former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

I love it when these Internet dudes say to me, 'Hey man, we just want to be 'content neutral.'

Washington faces a simple choice: allow the Internet to remain as an engine of innovation, a platform for speech in even the harshest tyrannies, and a unified connection for people across the globe—or cede control of the Internet to service providers motivated by their parochial interests.

The FCC sided with the public and adopted extremely strong net neutrality rules that should be a global model for Internet freedom.

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.

The Internet freedom issue we need to focus on is network neutrality.

Internet users should be able to choose where to go online and which applications to use. Comcast, say, shouldn't be allowed to block Skype just because it could siphon the communications giant's telephone business.

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

Both Republicans and Democrats championed a structure that allowed the 'application layer' of Internet architecture to be free from government intervention, apart from occasional Federal Trade Commission activity.

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

Beginning in the Clinton administration, there was, for nearly two decades, a broad bipartisan consensus that the best Internet policy was light-touch regulation - rules that promoted competition and kept the Internet 'unfettered by federal or state regulation.' Under this policy, a free and open Internet flourished.

I know that fundamentally, changes to the fabric of the internet, and sort of our methods of communication, can enforce our rights.

The critical question is: How do we ensure that the Internet develops in a way that is compatible with democracy?

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

At its core, the FCC's plan to regulate the Internet will force businesses and people to check first with the government and get permission to innovate.

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.

Net neutrality has been in place since the very beginning of the Internet.

Over the course of a year - from January 2014 to March 2015 - millions of Americans, hundreds of businesses, and dozens of policymakers weighed in at the Federal Communications Commission in favor of net neutrality.

The public should have access to unfettered communication and commerce, and the Internet is increasingly the medium where that takes place.

To go back to a 1950s voice mentality with Title II and net neutrality would be a tremendous mistake for our country.

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