Charlie Ergen Issues Statement on Net Neutrality Rules

[Scott Greczkowski]

DISH NETWORK CEO CHARLIE ERGEN ISSUES STATEMENT ON FCC’S ADOPTION OF NET NEUTRALITY RULES

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., December 21, 2010 – DISH Network L.L.C.’s CEO and President Charlie Ergen today issued a statement following the Federal Communications Commission’s adoption of net neutrality rules:

“DISH Network applauds Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps and Clyburn for adopting critically important net neutrality rules. The Commission's Order is a solid framework for protecting the open Internet. The new rules give companies, including DISH Network, the framework to invest capital and manpower in Internet-related technologies without fear that our investment will be undermined by carriers’ discriminatory practices. While we wish the Commission would have gone further to expressly prohibit discrimination on wireless platforms, we are pleased that there will be ongoing Commission oversight and enforcement authority.”

 

[Voyager6]

Me thinks that his issue is going back to court. Didn't the FCC lose the last time it tried to impose "net neutrality"? Court rules for Comcast over FCC in 'net neutrality' case

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to force Internet service providers to keep their networks open to all forms of content, throwing into doubt the agency's status as watchdog of the Web.
The FCC has long sought to impose rules requiring Internet providers to offer equal treatment to all Web traffic, a concept known as network neutrality. But in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the agency lacked the power to stop cable giant Comcast from slowing traffic to a popular file-sharing site.
The FCC's predicament stems from a 2008 sanction against Comcast for violating the agency's open Internet guidelines, which were meant to force broadband providers to treat all network traffic equally, so as not to put any Web site at a disadvantage. In a 3 to 2 vote, the FCC found that Comcast had improperly slowed traffic to the BitTorrent file-sharing site and urged the company to halt the practice. It did not impose a fine....
Comcast appealed the FCC sanction, saying that the agency's order was outside the scope of its authority. The court agreed on Tuesday, saying the agency relied on laws that give it some jurisdiction over broadband services but not enough to make the action against Comcast permissible.
"For a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast's network management practices," the court wrote in its 3-0 decision. "We therefore grant Comcast's petition for review and vacate the challenged order."

 

[Brussam]

Maybe from a business viewpoint this is good, but it sure isn't anything the Unites States needs is respect to jeopardy to our freedoms.

 

[ekilgus]

Me thinks that his issue is going back to court. Didn't the FCC lose the last time it tried to impose "net neutrality"? Court rules for Comcast over FCC in 'net neutrality' case

As I understand this, the courts have ruled several times that the FCC has no authority to impose "net neutrality" but they move ahead anyway. To what end?

 

[navychop]

Maybe from a business viewpoint this is good, but it sure isn't anything the Unites States needs is respect to jeopardy to our freedoms.

Eh?

Please explain. I'd think supporting net neutrality is very much in the individual's interests. Otherwise each ISP can take cash to speed up access to site X at the expense of site Y, or to even deliberately slow access to site Y. Most especially, without net neutrality, an ISP could slow ALL programming downloads except their own, forcing customers to sign up for that ISP's video service.

 

[bacchus101]

As I understand this, the courts have ruled several times that the FCC has no authority to impose "net neutrality" but they move ahead anyway. To what end?

Here is a taste of the future without net neutrality: Mobile Carriers Dream of Charging per Page

 

[DishSubLA]

If the FCC would just rule that ISP's are "common carrier" there wouldn't be any loss or even challenge in court. The problem is the FCC has taken a "regulate lite" approach and it causes confusion and lack of predictability for businesses because some will legally changeling it. This is really bad news for consumers because it allows for billing according to usage which means any savings using on-line services like Netflix will now be too expensive as a real competitive challenge to cable, et al. Further, it does NOTHING to prevent carriers from forms of discrimination (as in crunch Sling, but allow their own TV on wireless devices service full advantage on their network as just one example) on their wireless services. And beyond that, there are supposed to be several loopholes to the supposed "consumer" new rules. Not a great day for consumers at the FCC.

 

[Herb S.]

What's really ironic is that Verizon is running ads for their new 4g network, showing a customer using the 4g connecting to watch a movie from Netflix.

 

[UnSat]

Its a slippery slope.

 

[Brussam]

This thread shows the classic problem with issues today. Most everyone is concerned about having bandwidth and the costs involved. They are all watching the right hand of the FCC.

Look over to the left hand where they also want want to insure content providers deliver balanced views of anything they provide. Like a web site dedicated to Dish TV could also have to carry information on DirecTV and Comcast, etc. Or more obviously, websites that carry content opposed to the Government.

This not about bandwidth, it is about controlling the Internet media. Be aware, be very aware.

 

[Voyager6]

This not about bandwidth, it is about controlling the Internet media. Be aware, be very aware.

"No. Be afraid. Be very afraid." Be afraid, be very afraid

 

[bacchus101]

Look over to the left hand where they also want want to insure content providers deliver balanced views of anything they provide.

Actually, no - net neutrality has nothing to do with balanced views, but I do see such ridiculous statements being made in parts of the media. It seems that the other side, i.e. AT&T, Verizon and the telco lobbyists have done a good job of muddling this issue.

Here is a base definition:

Net Neutrality is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication. The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.

 

[Tyralak]

The FCC has no right to tell private HOAs and landlords what they can and can't allow for satellite and antenna installations. This is an insane power grab. This is interfering with the free market. Let the market work. If someone doesn't like an HOA telling them they can't have a dish, they can move somewhere else. The HOAs will soon get the message. This is a slippery slope. This is effectively nationalizing pay TV. Pretty soon they're going to start telling TV providers that they have to carry balanced programming of the government's choosing. This can't be allowed to happen.



Oh, wait.

 

[bacchus101]

I'd be laughing at some of these comments, if this wasn't so scary.

The tiered internet of our near future.

It never ceases to amaze me that people can take something as simple and fundamental as net neutrality and turn it into a political issue.

But, to think that a CEO like Charlie Ergan, who needs capitalism, a free market, and LESS government control to survive in business, would approve of this kind of idiocy is amazing to me. Who knew he was such a lib?

Charlie knows that if ISPs can undercut his streaming services (i.e. make streaming dish network programming ridiculously expensive or just ban it altogether - which they can do if there is no regulation) it will destroy the company as he has staked a lot in the last year on using the internet as the next step in the companies evolution.

 

[bacchus101]

This is a slippery slope. This is effectively nationalizing pay TV. Pretty soon they're going to start telling TV providers that they have to carry balanced programming of the government's choosing. This can't be allowed to happen

I think you accidentally posted in the wrong thread. Pay TV? This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Pay TV...

*sigh*

 

[Tyralak]

I think you accidentally posted in the wrong thread. Pay TV? This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Pay TV...

*sigh*

And you apparently are as thick as molasses. Re-read my post and think about it for a second.

I'd also take your sarcasm detector back to the store. It's clearly in need of re-calibration.

 

[webbydude]

The FCC has no right to tell private HOAs and landlords what they can and can't allow for satellite and antenna installations. This is an insane power grab. This is interfering with the free market. Let the market work. If someone doesn't like an HOA telling them they can't have a dish, they can move somewhere else. The HOAs will soon get the message. This is a slippery slope. This is effectively nationalizing pay TV. Pretty soon they're going to start telling TV providers that they have to carry balanced programming of the government's choosing. This can't be allowed to happen.



Oh, wait.

:up

 

[bacchus101]

I'd also take your sarcasm detector back to the store. It's clearly in need of re-calibration.

My apologies. As a webdeveloper and small business owner who makes his living with an open internet, I take this issue very seriously. Too seriously at times, unfortunately.

 

[goaliebob99]

"No. Be afraid. Be very afraid." Be afraid, be very afraid

It's time for another march to restore sanity! How about this we will stream it over the internets!

 

[ncted]

As someone who works in the Internet media business, it is pretty clear that without Net Neutrality, it would be very simple for one media company who also happens to be an ISP to cripple media competitors by intentionally slowing the competitors' traffic on their network. The previous court ruling was based on a lack of policy from the FCC, IIRC. This will close that loophole. Hypothetically, if I want to watch a show on cbs.com, I would not want Comcast to hamper the experience just because they own NBC, or make me or CBS pay more to get the content just because they have a monopoly on broadband in my market. Charlie's correct in this case IMHO.

Ted