Michael O'Rielly

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.

Conservative beliefs are not based on personal whims or feelings or polls but rather anchored in defensible core, time-tested positions. It's what makes a conservative somewhat boring compared to the liberal, independent, or populist.

Maybe Wi-Fi is a good technology to stretch existing networks beyond their edges to more rural portions of our nation. Similarly, Wi-Fi may be the cheapest and fastest way to bring Internet access to the huge populations of the world now without it.

The overall effect of the Kid Vid rules has been to force networks to prioritize less popular content. Some of this programming attracts reliable viewership among older children, but younger children largely aren't watching.

For a gut punch of nostalgia, consider that Saturday morning cartoons are now largely a thing of the past.

I can assure you that the United States intends to pursue the best course of action to meet its own spectrum needs.

Ideally, the ITU must be made up of truly visionary leaders - those willing to do the hard work to get critical spectrum bands realigned and put to their highest use.

Gone are the days when everyone had to tune in at the same time and channel each week to watch the newest episodes of a favorite show.

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.

We owe it to consumers to treat their dollars with respect and to double- and triple-check our assumptions about complex marketplaces rather than getting locked into a regulatory tunnel vision that will ultimately leave consumers with fewer, more expensive choices.

I think net neutrality needs to be explored in a broader sense.

People can and do live without Internet access, and many lead very successful lives.

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.

I know that there is a near unanimous view in Congress that state or local taxes on Internet access would directly deter the ability of consumers to obtain and utilize the Internet. If that is an accepted premise, as it should be, the same concept should apply to the net neutrality debate and its certainty to increase consumer bills.

Fundamentally, our broadband policy has been and should continue to be based on private sector companies continuing to build out their networks to meet consumer needs.

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.

Fundamentally, adopting rules without any estimate of the impact is the height of arbitrary decision-making.

I'm for Internet openness. We're all for Internet openness. If you asked the American people, I think they support it. Internet companies, broadband companies are all in favor of it.

I think there are ramifications for having rules when you don't have a problem.

It takes time and effort to soldier on and make your arguments.