No, we didn't 'slash' children's programming or eviscerate our rules by creating loopholes to allow those inclined to avoid airing any kids' programming at all, as some have asserted.
The goal of an ISP or a broadband provider is to get as many subscribers as possible. It's not to try to annihilate consumer interests.
In reality, anyone can call themselves a conservative. There is no secret handshake or written test to prove your bona fides. But the true conservative reaches outcomes by respecting and heeding to well-developed, sound principles.
In the end, I am confident that we can revise our rules to provide necessary and appropriate flexibility for local broadcasters while preserving and/or improving the experience of those watching children's programming.
American families want high-quality children's television programming. Unfortunately, due to outdated rules, broadcasters are hamstrung from meeting market demand.
During its retransmission dispute, CBS pulled its signal off of certain cable TV systems - and also blocked all Time Warner broadband customers from accessing CBS's Web-based content, even outside the territory of dispute. This is precisely the kind of content-blocking broadband providers are so often accused of but aren't actually doing.
Allowing staff to dictate frameworks and policy outcomes without appropriate checks by elected leaders has corrosive effects.
Instead of fostering investment and innovation through deregulation, the FCC will be devoting its resources to adopting new rules without any evidence that consumers are unable to access the content of their choice.
It is both impractical and very harmful for each state to enact differing and conflicting privacy burdens on broadband providers, many of which serve multiple states, if not the entire country.
From commercial companies to political campaigns, advertising dollars are increasingly being spent on the web, rather than on traditional media. Jeopardize this arrangement and a vast number of free Internet features and functions will evaporate in short order.
Net neutrality rules have been premised on the incentives and ability of ISPs to engage in harmful conduct, not actual harms. I don't believe we should be regulating based on hypothetical problems.
Quite simply, when D.C. Metro riders - often the first to see a problem developing - try to notify first responders, they frequently are unable to receive a signal strong enough to make a simple call to 9-1-1 to report the emergency.
Regulatory creep usually starts with calls for 'regulatory parity.' The mantra will be, if you are going to impose certain regulations, then it is only fair to stick it to all market participants equally.
Preventing staff from having too much influence and decision-making power is fairly easy. Appropriate procedural safeguards can be installed to prevent staff from, among other things, self-dealing, making decisions in an isolated manner, or committing funds without oversight.
While repealing net neutrality rules grabs headlines... net neutrality started as a consumer issue but soon became a stepping stone to impose vastly more common carrier regulation on broadband companies.
For a gut punch of nostalgia, consider that Saturday morning cartoons are now largely a thing of the past.
Everyone should acknowledge a simple truth: The heart and soul of today's Internet economy is the collection of data, mainly for use in targeted advertising.
The legend of a cable company trying to break the Internet makes scary bedtime stories for children of telecom geeks, but it is not reality.
I have seen throughout my professional career that the robust exchange of ideas and bipartisan compromises can bring about the best policy results.
I view edge providers as a significant bright spot in our struggling economy. They are tirelessly innovating, growing, and meeting - often exceeding - consumer expectations.
