He Said What? The GigaOM Net Neutrality Quiz

An avalanche of comments has so far poured into the Federal Communications Commission regarding plans to codify the principles of net neutrality, with folks arguing that it will destroy the Internet as we know it to those who believe it will usher in an era of competition that results in low broadband price and access for all (in the scenario everyone gets a lollipop, too).

With the commission set to open up the formal proceeding on establishing rules that will prevent wired and wireless ISPs from discriminating against traffic on their networks next Thursday, we at GigaOM thought we’d give you a lighthearted look at the different types of arguments out there. For a more serious perspective, check out our GigaOM Guide to the Net Neutrality Debate. So without further ado, please take the quiz below and see if you can match the quotation about net neutrality to the organization or person that filed it.

Entity Comment

Rick Perry
Rick Perry
A. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should, “Frame a proposed fifth principle protecting consumers from unreasonable discrimination that includes appropriately robust carve-outs for managed networks and reasonable network management, while promoting a dynamic, open and public Internet…In addition, revenues from managed services are an essential component of the business case for broadband investment. High capacity networks in turn promote a robust public Internet alongside managed networks.”

Communications Workers of America
Communications Workers of America
B. “Net Neutrality is simply a guarantee of fairness, a prohibition on discrimination. Telephone, cable and wireless companies will still manage their networks and will still invest as they wish. Putting the telephone, cable and wireless companies in control of the content, however, is a recipe for economic disaster.”

Blue Dog Democrats and 41 Other Democratic Representatives
C. “Public policy should intervene where anti-competitive actions can be identified and the cure will not be worse than the disease. Policymakers must tread carefully, however, because it can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine in advance whether a particular practice promotes or harms competition. Antitrust law generally takes a case-by-case approach under which private parties or public agencies can challenge business practices and the courts require proof of harm to competition before declaring a practice illegal. This is a sound approach that has served our economy well.”

Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge
Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge
D. “Like you, we believe in a transparent, data driven process and stand ready to work with you on measures that will spur adoption and expand the use of broadband networks. But we remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth we all seen to achieve.”

David Farber professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University
David Farber professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University
E. “I am concerned that the FCC’s recent call for increased government management of the Internet under the guise of “Network Neutrality” could have the opposite effect. Adding new layers of federal bureaucracy and regulations without a clear and compelling need for such one-size- fits-all government mandates will only discourage companies from investing in Texas and could have negative ramifications on what we have worked so hard to accomplish here. The creation of additional uncertainty, costs and disincentives to investment and job creation is the last thing our nation needs in the current economic climate.”