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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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'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.