Kyle McSlarrow 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.

It is clearly a sweetheart deal for an industry that doesn't deserve a special break and a competitive advantage over anybody.

It is important to take stock of where we are in 2006. In the last decade, the Bell monopolies have all but wiped out their telephone competitors; they have swallowed their long-distance competitors; and with the announcement of the AT&T-BellSouth merger, they are on the verge of recreating Ma Bell. And only one competitor really stands in their way: the cable industry.

Over the last 25 years, the American free enterprise system created the most diverse video programming on earth with the best value for the customer. It is disappointing that the updated report relies on assumptions that are not in line with the reality of the marketplace.

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

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

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.

You would not just be violating the First Amendment, but be hurting the very customers you're trying to help.

They're about to have a lot more choices around the corner.

There's a mismatch between what we do and what people think on the Hill. If anything, this industry has been too modest. We ought to be shouting from the rooftops.

A correct analysis concludes that mandated a la carte would be more expensive for consumers and result in less choice and shrinking diversity in cable programming.

Dan Quayle is completely committed to this campaign, and we understand that the real test will occur early next year when voters cast their ballots in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary,

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

It's not a problem. I don't know how many ways to say it. If you're going to write down the rules and make them mandatory, you're going to hand over a lot of wealth creation to lawyers...We should be very careful before stepping into this space--we should not panic.

In the last decade, the Bell monopolies have all but wiped out their telephone competitors; they have swallowed their long-distance competitors; and with the announcement of the AT&T-BellSouth merger, they are on the verge of re-creating Ma Bell. And only one competitor really stands in their way: the cable industry.

Government-mandated multi-casting requirements ... would constitute a 'taking' of cable operators' private property, which, in the absence of 'just compensation,' is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.

The hands-off policy has given us the flexibility to innovate and respond to consumer demand.

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.