Quote

Whether or not the U.S. government funds circumvention tools, or who exactly it funds and with what amount, it is clear that Internet users in China and elsewhere are seeking out and creating their own ad hoc solutions to access the uncensored global Internet.

It pays to be a fee fiend.

There were some who wanted all the benefits of E.U. membership without any of the costs. I'm not sure that's very realistic.

A user who essentially costs YouTube money has very little say. The way to have a say is to concretely support the creators and channels you watch directly by giving them money.

The United States invented the Internet and it has been our gift to the world, paid for by our taxpayers. The U.N.'s desire to take that gift as a means of increasing its power must be stopped.

Although advertised as 'invite only', it has been reported by Forbes Council members and invitees that this 'invite' came with a membership fee.

Why pay a fee for Internet content when a million free sites are just a click away? There's no incentive until people are too addicted to the Net to turn off their computers, yet are bored with what's available.

Free-to-play isn't a business model. Free-to-play is a marketing strategy. It's a way to get people over the hump of trying out your game. It gets rid of the friction that happens when you charge an upfront fee.

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.

I have been a strong supporter of a free and open Internet and have indicated this both prior to and subsequent to being sworn in as chairman of the F.C.C. I believe it is important to take concrete and reasonable steps to protect the freedom of users and entrepreneurs and businesses both small and large on the Internet.