1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Press Release - DISH Statement Regarding FCC'S Proposed Order On NET Neutrality

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Jason Nipp, Dec 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 1, 2010 #1 of 23
    Jason Nipp

    Jason Nipp Analog Geek in a Digital World Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    Jun 10, 2004

    DISH Network Statement Regarding FCC’s Proposed order on net neutrality
    ENGLEWOOD, Colo. – Dec. 1, 2010 – DISH Network L.L.C. Chairman, President and CEO Charles Ergen issued the following statement regarding the FCC’s proposed order on net neutrality:

    "DISH Network applauds Chairman Genachowski for moving forward on critically important net neutrality rules. His proposal is a solid framework for protecting the open Internet. We look forward to working with the Commission in improving upon the draft order in the next few weeks. DISH Network has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in jobs-creating, Internet-based technology, and we agree with the Chairman that an open Internet platform is the best way to ensure continued innovation and investment."

    # # #

    About DISH Network
    DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ : DISH), through its subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C., provides more than 14.2 million satellite TV customers, as of September 30, 2010, with the highest quality programming and technology at the best value, including HD Free for Life. Subscribers enjoy industry-leading customer satisfaction, the largest high definition line-up with more than 200 national HD channels, the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology. DISH Network Corporation is included in the Nasdaq-100 Index (NDX) and is a Fortune 200 company. Visit www.dish.com.
  2. Dec 1, 2010 #2 of 23

    Mikej0530 Cool Member

    Dec 23, 2008
    and I was thinking about going back to Dish Network. Anyone that is for net neutrality I think should go out of business. Our Freedom as Americans are being taken away because of Big Government.
  3. Dec 1, 2010 #3 of 23

    Alsat AllStar

    Jun 30, 2004

    Net Neutrality is making the internet go by the same common carrier rules that phone companies must go by (OMG regulation). It means that, say Comcast, can't make traffic going across them that is going to a competitor slower, or ooops, lose it, but not treat packets going to their services in the same manner.

    I don't want to be restricted by whatever ISP service I have available in my area as to what websites I can go to. If I have Comcast, I would still like to have the option to use Netflix and not be denied that because that competes with Comcast and NBC and they *prefer* that I only get online content from them.

    It would be like having Walmart buy the roads leading to them and Target (Targets & Walmarts always seem to be next door to each other nowdays) and charging a 5¢ toll if you only go to Walmart, but charge $5 if you want to go to Target, perform a TSA style strip search on you and all of your passengers and limit your speed on the road to 2.1 mph, to insure the safety and speedy travel of the important shoppers going to Walmart.

    It is amazing to me how this has been, the government protecting your right to an open internet, telling companies that they CANNOT PLACE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN DO, WHO YOU CAN TALK TO, WITH YOUR CONNECTION, has been spun to be seen as evil. Freedom indeed.
  4. Dec 1, 2010 #4 of 23
    Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    Oct 27, 2004
    There is nothing "neutral" about "Net Neutrality". As Mikej0530 stated, this is just an unnecessary big government power grab.

    I'm sorry to see E* take this position. They are either blind to the political implications or a part of the scheme.
  5. Dec 1, 2010 #5 of 23

    CoolGui Icon

    Feb 8, 2006
    I hate to bring up politics, but you guys have been drinking the fox news, right wing, extreme pro-business, anti-consumer kool aid I think. Net neutrality has made the internet the useful tool it is today. Companies have been respecting the nuetrality only because of the threat of regulation. If they ever call the bluff it will be you and me and sites like DBSTalk and others that will ultimately pay the price.
  6. Dec 1, 2010 #6 of 23

    Quentin New Member

    May 21, 2008
    I work in the computer field; my company (among other things) has connections to three Tier 1 providers and several high speed academic networks, and provides Internet service to three colleges with tens of thousands of students. I've been involved with Internet networking for two decades.

    And I can say that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with government control, and everything to do with allowing all companies (not just the cable and phone companies) to compete in a free market.

    Just recently, Comcast started charging extra to Netflix's ISP because they want to quash competition with their own streaming-TV products. Not cool. I already pay for my internet connection; my ISP shouldn't then charge Netflix to be able to send me data on the connection I already paid for. If you like the free market, you'll like net neutrality.

    There's an easy way to check this; see which companies want Net Neutrality and which want to avoid it. The anti-Net-Neutrality folks are Verizon, Comcast, and other phone and cable companies. The pro-Net-Neutrality folks are, well, every other company.

  7. Dec 1, 2010 #7 of 23

    RasputinAXP Kwisatz Haderach of Cordcuttery

    Jan 23, 2008
    If you really work in the field, then you'll know that level 3 is the one in the wrong, here. They're trying to use their peering agreement to leverage their status with Netflix and claim they're not a CDN when they are.

    It has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
  8. Dec 2, 2010 #8 of 23

    olguy Hall Of Fame

    Jan 9, 2006
    What goes around comes around. Some might call it karma. Click here to read the Level 3 statement in 2005 when they did to Cogent what Comcast just did to them.

    It's about money, control and power. The peerage agreements are about money. The FCC is about power and control. "Net Neutrality" was defeated in the senate so the FCC chairman has decided to do it on his own.
  9. Dec 2, 2010 #9 of 23

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    Jun 6, 2009
    I get the impression that those speaking out against NN are somehow involved with the companies who would be adversely affected by forcing a level playing field.

    What I'm not clear on is whether NN will increase or decrease bandwidth caps and limits imposed on end users.
  10. JWKessler

    JWKessler Legend

    Jun 2, 2004
    What some see as a "big government power grab" other may see as government protecting the citizens from a "big corporate power grab". Net neutrality means all website are to be treated equally.

    Ideally our congress would enact laws to protect us from this corporate power grab, but since most of our representatives work for the big corporations and not for us, that seems unlikely. The FCC can make and enforce these rules so that seems like the way to go for now. That also means that some future administration can appoint a new FCC head who will reverse those rules, and you can be sure lots of corporate money will be spent (and is already being spent) to make that change.
  11. olguy

    olguy Hall Of Fame

    Jan 9, 2006
    Some who are defending the FCC just might need to understand that the chairman is on record as supporting usage based pricing. From today's Wall Street Journal:

    Does that read like he has the consumer in mind? Guess it's all right if you don't use Netflix, Amazon VOD, Hulu etc.
  12. patmurphey

    patmurphey Godfather

    Dec 21, 2006
    What's wrong with paying for what you use? Why should others pay?
  13. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    Jun 6, 2009
    Nothing wrong with that. You drive more miles, you use more gasoline, you pay more. You eat more food, you pay more.
  14. olguy

    olguy Hall Of Fame

    Jan 9, 2006
    Guess I should not have included the comment about Netflix, etc. I see nothing wrong with UBP and was just pointing out to others who think the FCC will block it that the chairman agrees with the concept. I like pay for what you use so much I wish Dish had a meter on my 922 and charged for the channels I watch so I don't have to support the sports fanatics. (That's a joke son. Don't want to get that argument started in this thread. :lol:
  15. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Apr 17, 2003
    We're already paying twice ... the server and the client both pay their respective ISPs for access to the network. Where it gets weird is the interconnects between networks. Who owns the line and who pays whom for those connections?

    When a provider is looking at content instead of just usage to decide what the connection fee to their network will be it can become a problem. When the decision to allow or charge more for a connection to your network is made based on the content of those data packages, not just the volume, we have lost neutrality.

    Customers are paying their ISPs for access to the entire Internet. Businesses are paying their ISPs for access to the entire Internet. Setting up extra firewalls and toll gates gets in the way of the free market exchange of data.
  16. Alsat

    Alsat AllStar

    Jun 30, 2004
    Usage is not a problem. If I have a 2Mbs connection with no specified *limit* then I should be able to use that connection at 2Mbs for the entire month for the negotiated fee. If there is a bandwith limit of 2GB with anything above that an extra charge, that would be ok, as long as the customer is aware of this and contracts are not altered by the communications network just because they find they are unable to provide the services they sold the consumer. If Verizon sells a bunch of people a 100Mbs Unlimited access connection and then find that those people use it 24/7 at full capacity, then they should have to ride it out until the end of the contract and then correct the fees. This world where a contract with the consumer is really meaningless, with the company (credit card, cable, isp, etc) able to unilaterally change the terms (and never for the benefit of the consumer) is ludicrous. But is is the *Free Market*™ as defined by big business and any unsatisfied customer can opt out after paying hefty termination fees.

    The problem is restrictions on what the connection is used for. If I have an MSN connection, then they could give me access to Bing but not access to Google because Google is a competitor. Or if I get a Comcast account, deny (or degrading) connections to NetFlix or CBS just because they now own NBC. Force me or divert me to their DNS server instead of the one I selected so they can better deliver targeted advertising to me - and collect information about me to sell. Even better, any MSN network trunk could drop any packet going to a Google ip address even if neither the user or Google are on that network. All in the name of preserving performance (i.e. delaying any infrastucture improvements until some future time so this quarter's profits won't be affected).

    The other problem with isps altering traffic based on what the traffic is potentially makes them responsible for the content of that traffic. If the isp is looking at the traffic on their network to filter out the *bad* stuff, then if a user of that isp is using it to spam, or distribute porn, or cyber-bully a kid to death, then they will eventually be held responsible in this litigious society.
  17. Kagato

    Kagato Godfather

    Jul 1, 2002
    People pay Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, etc. for X amount of "Unlimited" internet bandwidth. I expect that gets me the X amount of bandwidth to the ISP's office and from there unfettered access to multiple internet back bones. Why? Because that's what I'm paying for.

    At the same time, content providers pay similar fees to internet backbone providers to carry their content.

    In my opinion, companies that what to engage in this "Pay to get the express lane" schemes are committing fraud. They should be forced to put a black box disclaimer on all their marketing that states "LIMITED INTERNET SERVICE".
  18. QuickDrop

    QuickDrop Hall Of Fame

    Jul 20, 2007
    What freedom are you losing? I can understand why some people fear that a larger government has the potential to limit "freedom." However, this is an example of government insuring that citizens' freedoms aren't limited by big corporations. The size of government as it relates to GDP has nothing to do with it. This stuff goes back to the post Gilded Age and Teddy Roosevelt.

    Government isn't the only collective that can limit a citizen's freedom and at least you can vote a politician out of office.
  19. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    Mar 18, 2008
    Dish is happy, as well as DirecTV and other non ISP content providers, with this because it would not make them pay a premium fee for their content through an ISP.

    The whole point that is coming up with NN is the fact that your ISP can, if they want, start limiting bandwidth on competing services such as Dish VoD, Netflix, Hulu, You Tube, or anything else they want to. They could then charge a fee for "priority" bandwidth, what you're used to now, to help their bottom line.

    A full free market would say that this is great. This is truly free market because those who want to pay for more bandwidth can and competition is good. It could in theory drive more ISP's and blah blah blah.

    Consumers on the other hand will be the ones to brunt all of this expense. Dish/Netflix will have to start charging more to the consumer so that they can offset the charge(s) they are now paying. You will have to pay more to your ISP as they go to a usage model which is comeing.

    NN is attempting to stop the companies that control the bandwidth from getting into business models where they make money by stopping, or making it very inconvenient, what you want for companies that will pay them more for what they want you to see.

    Imagine going to www.google.com but yahoo pays your ISP for premium content so a message pops up saying that google will load shortly but if you want instant access to searches you can goto www.yahoo.com.
  20. patmurphey

    patmurphey Godfather

    Dec 21, 2006
    Well, net neutrality sounds good, but the courts rejected FCC's authority to regulate the Internet, Congress rejected an extension of that authority. Now the FCC has reclassified the definition of Internet communication as an end run around the law, using the popular sounding "net neutrality" as justification. Don't kid yourself, they are planning a great deal more regulation, including content, once their nose is under the tent. You should listen to the words of the regualtion writers if you doubt that.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page