A Quote by Rajeev Suri

We have to take a long view on net neutrality. — © Rajeev Suri
We have to take a long view on net neutrality.
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.
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.
The net neutrality game is to make everybody the same so that there's no difference and the prices are the same and if these Millennials got their way nothing would cost anything. But it's classic. This is a great illustration. Net neutrality is being stood upside down which is good because it's pro-competition, it offers customers options.
After President Obama announced his support for net neutrality yesterday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted that 'Net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet.' While Ted Cruz continues to be the Taylor Swift of not getting over Obamacare.
Look at the way liberals name things. "Net neutrality." It's like Switzerland! They don't take sides, everybody's fair, everything's the same. It's not what it is. Net neutrality rules are anti-consumer and anti-competitive. By definition, liberals don't believe in competition, and you know that. Competition is the root of all evil, as far as leftists are concerned, 'cause there are winners and there are losers, and the losers are sad and disappointed, and that's unacceptable. So everything must be the same. Nobody can have more than anybody else.
The Web took off in all its glory because it was a royalty-free infrastructure . . . When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going to end in the U.S.A. If we had a situation in which the U.S. had serious flaws in its Net Neutrality, and Europe did have Net Neutrality, and I were trying to start a company, then I would be very tempted to move.
Net neutrality is a big deal to the left because it puts the government in charge of the internet. It puts the government in charge of content. It lets the government choose what you can watch and what you can't watch and what you pay for it. And that's bogus. In the name of competition, they want to take competition away from the net. They're leftists. They lie to you about what they want to do.
If you go to Cass Sunstein, what net neutrality means is now if you go to FoxNews.com, you will have Arianna Huffington, a little box pop up with her showing that Bill O’Reilly is wrong on this or here’s an opposing view of Bill O’Reilly.
Net Neutrality is Internet freedom.
Net neutrality is one where we the people are definitely on the ropes.
I know that there is a near unanimous view in Congress that state or local taxes on Internet access would directly deter the ability of consumers to obtain and utilize the Internet. If that is an accepted premise, as it should be, the same concept should apply to the net neutrality debate and its certainty to increase consumer bills.
I think net neutrality needs to be explored in a broader sense.
Let's not let the government sell us out. Let's fight for net neutrality.
It's an incredibly important thing to make sure we preserve net neutrality.
You know, the only reason net neutrality is controversial is because it's complicated.
Net Neutrality is what makes the Internet so great - and so vital for innovation and creativity.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!