‘Politico Magazine’ listed me among the top 50 ‘thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics’ for my work in coalitions advancing net neutrality.
The concept of neutrality can lead to a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it.
‘Network neutrality’ is sometimes called ‘Internet freedom’ or ‘Internet openness’ and is a legal principle that would forbid cable and phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from blocking some websites or providing special priority to others.
Monaco’s neutrality is one of our main attributes – the role of small countries is to act as go-betweens between big nations.
If we didn’t have Net neutrality, carriers could do things like penalize companies that use a lot of bandwidth or create high-speed lanes and charge Internet companies extra fees to send their stuff over them. That would give an advantage to big companies and make life harder for startups.
It’s only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy. That is the most important concept of net neutrality.
Charter hired me – which, to be honest, took some humility on its part, since I have helped lead public campaigns against cable companies like Charter – to advise it in crafting its commitment to network neutrality.
In the relationship between man and religion, the state is firmly committed to a position of neutrality.
Net Neutrality is what makes the Internet so great – and so vital for innovation and creativity.
Today, it’s about gender equality, not neutrality. Anyone who doesn’t agree would be a bit of an idiot.
When the Obama administration passed the net neutrality rules in 2015, even when we were winning, I favored trying to get these rules in a statute, because I feel that the best way to establish predictability for the marketplace is to make sure they’re not subject to the whims of a partisan vote at the FCC.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
We need to make Net Neutrality the law. We need to elect a Congress that will make it a priority to keep this important principal intact – and insure equal and open access to the Internet for all.
There’s always a fine line that divides hostility from neutrality, and I don’t want to pass that line.
I am not a great believer in the idea that journalistic neutrality means you have to abandon the people you talk to.
The next generation of innovators, who need neutrality the most, are not at the bargaining table. They’re hard at work in their labs or classrooms, dreaming of the next big thing, and hoping that the Internet is as open to them as it was to the founders of Google.
I want to talk about privacy, the quality of the information you receive, whether it’s neutral or commercial or pointed, bringing consciousness to the lack of neutrality in the algorithms.
I think the Internet has developed at this incredibly rapid pace because of net neutrality, because of the free nature of it, because a YouTube can start the way YouTube started.
Network neutrality protects the ability of users to access the lawful content, applications, and services of their choice. In other words, it lets users determine who wins and loses in the marketplace, and that’s the way it should be.
Net neutrality isn’t a government takeover of the Internet, as many of my Republican colleagues have alleged.
I think net neutrality needs to be explored in a broader sense.
Without network neutrality, cable and phone companies could stifle innovation.
Pages: 1 2
