HIGH-TECH COMPANIES ISSUE STATEMENT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES

[Scott Greczkowski]

HIGH-TECH COMPANIES ISSUE STATEMENT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 14, 2010 – Amazon, Data Foundry, DISH Network, EarthLink, eBay, EchoStar Corporation, IAC, Skype, Sling Media and XO Communications issued the following statement today about the open Internet rules:
"We support the public statements by senior Members of Congress that regardless of the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Comcast vs. FCC, the FCC has the legal authority to implement open Internet rules for the benefit of consumers."

[eddie willers]

They must have their bribes already lined up.

[Scott Greczkowski]

I agree with Dish and the other companies on this...

Your ISP should not be able to tell you what you can do on the Internet connection that you pay for.

If you want to use Skype, you should be able to use it.

But with that said I also believe that ISP's SHOULD be able to put up data caps on their service and offer different tiers with more bandwidth included.

[TheKrell]

I also believe that ISP's SHOULD be able to put up data caps on their service and offer different tiers with more bandwidth included.

Yes, they already do that, and so far as I know, nobody is trying to change that. What net neutrality is all about is making those caps different (i.e. much lower or blocked altogether) for certain types of traffic, e.g. p2p, than the rest. What's his name (head of AT&T) actually with his bare face hanging out suggested that they start charging Google (or perhaps their customers?) for "use of their pipes," i.e. Google-specific traffic.

[Voyager6]

The DC appeals court ruled that the FCC failed to show that it was not "rule making" rather than an "
adjudicatory proceeding

" i.e. explaining policy. It also failed to show the Court where it would have derived it's legal authority from.

The D.C. court wrote in its ruling:"It is true that 'Congress gave the [Commission] broad and adaptable jurisdiction so that it can keep pace with rapidly evolving communications technologies. It is also true that '[t]he Internet is such a technology,' indeed, 'arguably the most important innovation in communications in a generation,' Yet notwithstanding the "difficult regulatory problem of rapid technological change" posed by the communications industry, "the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer, Commission authority.' Because the Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast's Internet service to any "statutorily mandated responsibility," we grant the petition for review and vacate the Order."

Congress can give the FCC the legal authority necessary to regulate the internet.

[Scott Greczkowski]

The entire thing brewed because Comcast was blocking access to some services including file sharing.

That is what started this entire thing.

[dishcomm]

At this point, I don"t care what COngress or the FCC does as long as it is consumer friendly, maintains open internet access and prevents large operators, ISP's and others from limiting access.
One other item. I oppose any government interference such as changing internet status to that of a public utility.
Oh, I agree that large users of bandwidth should pay more. People such as on line gamers and such.
Bandwidth use should be tier priced.

[lakebum431]

At this point, I don"t care what COngress or the FCC does as long as it is consumer friendly, maintains open internet access and prevents large operators, ISP's and others from limiting access.
One other item. I oppose any government interference such as changing internet status to that of a public utility.Oh, I agree that large users of bandwidth should pay more. People such as on line gamers and such.
Bandwidth use should be tier priced.

So you don't care, but you do care?

[riffjim4069]

I agree with Dish and the other companies on this...

Your ISP should not be able to tell you what you can do on the Internet connection that you pay for.

If you want to use Skype, you should be able to use it.

But with that said I also believe that ISP's SHOULD be able to put up data caps on their service and offer different tiers with more bandwidth included.

I agree with the ISP being able to regulate bandwidth caps and speeds...and not imposing prohibitive rules beyond those related to their security responsibilities (i.e., due care and due diligence). However, in exchange I get the feeling Congress is going to have to plug-the-gap with all the freeloaders delivering and consuming video without paying their fair-share. Currently, Cable is subject to heafty franchise fees and other taxes for delivering video whereas Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, Youtube, and satellite VOD and PPV are getting a free ride for their IP delivered video. Heck, even Verizon's FiOS TV and AT&T's U-Verse (IPTV) has to pay these fees and taxes...so why should the above freeloaders continue to get a free ride? They should not! Netflix and DBS customers should be paying fees and taxes for each movie rented or PPV watched that is delivered over the internet...usually Cable (Comcast, Time-Warnet and Cox) or Telco (Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-Verse) networks. Conversely, satellite video delivered over spectrum leased from the FCC should be exempt from all the BS state and local taxes.

Anyway, it's amazing how all my VOIP services (SunRocket, Packet8 and ViaTalk) were all unreliable on our former Comcast network, but they have been rock-solid for 2+ years when we moved into FiOS area. Again, the ISP have every right (and a duty) to ensure their customers are using their networks is a safe and secure manner, but they should not be able to unfairly regulate common services like my former scumbag Comcast who were screwing with my non-Comcast VOIP.

[Scott Greczkowski]

Netflix and companies like that are not getting a free ride... they pay for their bandwidth like everyone else. (And man would I hate to see their bandwidth bills!)