All sides of the net neutrality debate agree that consumers should be in control of their Internet experience. Where we differ is on whether consumers alone should foot the bill for the advanced networks that drive the Internet's growth and evolution. Simply put, our side believes that businesses that seek to profit on the use of next-generation networks should not be free of all costs associated with the increased capacity that is required for delivery of the advanced services and applications they seek to market. |
By rushing out a one-sided rule that encourages only land line to wireless transfers, that promise was broken. |
In the past, the [Federal Communications Commission] repeatedly has expressed its commitment to portability rules that are efficient and fair, so they are not a source of competitive advantage for one platform or another, |
Regulatory or legislative solutions wholly without justification in marketplace activities would stifle, not enhance the Internet. |
The promise of the next-generation Internet is dependent upon there being investment in next-generation networks. If you're going to expand these networks, how are you going to earn a return on that investment? |
There already exists oversight by the Federal Communications Commission today that has proven to be effective in protecting consumers' right to be in control of their Internet experience. |
We will not block, impair or degrade content, applications or services. That is the plainest and most direct way I know to address concerns that have been raised about Net neutrality. |
While we have not yet reviewed the draft in detail, we are encouraged by its overall direction, particularly in promoting investment and competition in advanced services. |