The FCC, under my leadership, will stand for the First Amendment.
My own view is that the Internet should be run by technologists and engineers and business people, not by lawyers and bureaucrats here in the nation's capital.
The bottom line is this: I want America to be at the forefront of innovation in the broadcast sector, the wireless sector, and every other sector of the communications industry.
I believe in the First Amendment.
I support a free and open Internet.
High-speed Internet access, or broadband, is giving entrepreneurs anywhere an unprecedented chance to disrupt entire industries and transform our country.
Whether you live in a big city or a small town, a call placed by a loved one, friend, or customer should go through.
We all agree on the core values of a free and open Internet. We simply may disagree on the appropriate regulatory framework for securing those values. And I would much rather have an open and honest debate about the appropriate regulatory framework as opposed to throwing misinformation out there to achieve political ends.
The federal government has no business spending your hard-earned money on a project to monitor political speech on Twitter.
To bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans, the FCC needs to make it easier for companies to build and expand broadband networks. We need to reduce the cost of broadband deployment, and we need to eliminate unnecessary rules that slow down or deter deployment.
Under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.
Now look: I love Twitter. But let's not kid ourselves; when it comes to a free and open Internet, Twitter is a part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.
For newspapers to continue to play an important role in civic engagement, they need more access to capital. Their decline has created a real threat to independent reporting at the state and local level.
There is no reason why any legitimate caller should be spoofing an unassigned or invalid number. And providers shouldn't be sued for doing the right thing by blocking illegitimate spoofing.
In my first remarks as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to the agency's terrific staff, I stressed that one of my top priorities would be to close the digital divide - the gap between those who use cutting-edge communications services and those who do not.
Protecting consumers goes beyond just fighting illicit schemes. It also involves making sure that they get what they pay for. Unfortunately, rural telephone customers aren't always assured of that.
There is no reason why any legitimate caller should be spoofing an unassigned or invalid phone number. It's just a way for scammers to evade the law.
Whereas robocalls are ever-present, the problem of contraband cellphones in prisons - that is, cellphones illegally being used by inmates - is generally out-of-sight and too easily ignored. But the need for action is just as clear.
President Clinton got it right in 1996 when he established a free-market-based approach to this new thing called the Internet, and the Internet economy we have is a result of his light-touch regulatory vision.
Throughout the history of communications, we've seen that the country that sets the pace in rolling out each new generation of wireless technology gains an economic edge.
