The FCC should obviously not propose bad rules that will be struck down; it should propose good rules that will be upheld.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
For those broadcasters who are less than responsible, the FCC needs to have sharper teeth to enforce the law.
Inserting the FCC into our states' economic and fiscal affairs sets a dangerous precedent and violates state sovereignty in a manner that warrants deeper examination.
Do we really want the FCC to conduct investigations and issue warnings to radio talk show hosts nationwide who simply discuss the important issues of our time? The Constitution says 'freedom of speech,' not 'freedom of government-approved fair speech in rationed amounts.'
The FCC can and indeed should do more to protect the Internet as the free and open environment people have come to expect and depend on - which is why we need to stand up to attacks on the FCC's authority.
My legislation provides that Net Neutrality rules would have 'no force or effect' and prohibits similar rules from being published or re-issued.
The FCC can't enforce press-statement principles without adopting official rules, and those rules must be based on the legal theory of reclassification.
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.
Almost everything the FCC does is challenged in court. There is no clean solution because we have a Communications Act that wasn't written for broadband.
There is just one exception to the FCC's no-throttling rule - if a company can prove that throttling is 'reasonable network management.'
Any 'network neutrality' rule should be designed to forbid phone or cable companies from controlling the Internet.
No opposing quotes found.