The FCC has been hard at work doing what we can to help close the digital divide.
Broadband Internet access service is inherently an interstate service, and that is not a determination that just the FCC has made.
I have a pretty friendly professional working relationship with Mr. Pai, and I told him not to walk down too much of a partisan path. I didn't think it would be good in terms of policy. And I didn't think it would be good in terms of the FCC's ability to solve other problems.
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.
The FCC is a quasi-judicial body. It is supposed to undertake this period of public comment with a degree of seriousness and respect.
We need a generation of net neutrality voters. People now really understand what's at stake, and we need to translate millions of comments to the FCC into millions of votes in the midterm.
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.
I am disappointed and frustrated by the FCC's decision to ignore the vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum, and instead side with corporations that now have the power to manipulate Internet access based on who can pay more.
Currently under FCC policy, indecency determinations hinge on two factors. First, material must describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities. Second, the material must be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.
We love having the freedom that we have with the web; I mean, we don't have to answer to anybody. We have complete creative control; we don't have to worry about FCC regulations.
