Kyle McSlarrow Government Quotations

If what we understand is being considered, this is a huge step . . . in the wrong direction. Essentially, you have the government picking winners and losers by giving the Bell monopolies a special break.

Such a massive government intrusion into how a broadband service like video is marketed, offered and priced would undoubtedly chill the needed innovation and investment necessary to build out capital intensive networks that rely on the marketplace to determine the most economically effective way to provide a return on investment.

It is critical for all providers of video services to be treated on a level playing field. The government should not pick winners and losers in the broadband industry by establishing a different set of rules that favor one provider over another.

We continue to believe that the better course is for the government to resist injecting itself into a thriving, dynamic market where investment and innovation are flourishing.

The government shouldn't regulate the Internet in the absence of a market failure.

The government must avoid picking winners and losers by imposing regulation based on the particular mix of technology a video provider deploys.

The notion that the government knows better how to improve on a competitive marketplace is not supported by the evidence.

Any government mandates, and certainly for any one of those options (suggested by Martin), in our view is very clearly under Supreme Court precedent a violation of the First Amendment.

The marketplace in which cable, satellite, broadcasters and others vigorously compete for customers should decide video offerings - not mandates and price controls imposed by Washington, D.C.. The notion that the government knows better how to improve on a competitive marketplace is not supported by the evidence.