Charlie Ergen Issues Statement on Net Neutrality Rules (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

DishSubLA

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2006
5,286
1,141
80778743290078638432.jpg


Son, I am disappoint. Please re-read what I wrote, then read my posts a bit further down.

Gramps, I thought I did, but your posts are particularity cryptic and confusing. Sorry if thought you on the dark side, and please don't feel you have to spend your valuable time from your vacant schedule to hunt down and then post images that are a violation of copyright. Paramount could come a calling for your posterior with a Cease and Desist, and I would feel terrible having driven you to it. I didn't know I had such power. What is this forum's policy on posting images with copyright and not owned by the poster?
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Oyving

SatelliteGuys Family
Supporting Founder
Oct 3, 2003
65
0
Amboy IL
Do we want SatelliteGuys.us to load 10 times slower than DBStalk.com? I don't think so. I can see Comcast charging SatelliteGuys a premium for "faster" delivery. That would not be fair.
 

Tyralak

SatelliteGuys Master
Oct 21, 2003
5,702
167
Secure, Undisclosed Location
Gramps, I thought I did, but your posts are particularity cryptic and confusing. Sorry if thought you on the dark side, and please don't feel you have to spend your valuable time from your vacant schedule to hunt down and then post images that are a violation of copyright. Paramount could come a calling for your posterior with a Cease and Desist, and I would feel terrible having driven you to it. I didn't know I had such power. What is this forum's policy on posting images with copyright and not owned by the poster?

If Paramount owned the rights to the Star Trek TV shows, and parodies weren't covered under fair use, you may be right. However, CBS owns all of the Star Trek TV series, and memes are covered under fair use. No points off for trying though. Oh, and it was no trouble at all. I have a collection of memes so large it borders on unhealthy, all organized by category. But I think we've strayed off topic. ;)
 
Last edited:

bacchus101

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 10, 2006
500
19
.
i.e. everyone seemed happy with the deregulation of the electric utility market. that has been a total disaster. at least back then, if it was .06/kwh, that is what everyone was paying. now it is all over the place.

Thanks for bringing this up. My cost per kwh has gone up 49% in the last two years. There is only one supplier and they can charge what they choose. No one is knocking down the door to get into this market as the startup costs are too high.

But that really isn't the point. Actually, it made me think of something else. What if the electric company charged you based on what you used electricity for, haha (sounds funny, right?) Using AC? Your bad. That costs 50% more! Have a non-cfl light bulb in your bathroom? That will be 33% more. Do you own a Panasonic TV? Sorry, those cost 120% more to run and can only be operated between the hours of 8 AM and 8PM. However, through a special deal we are offering we will give you $100 cash back if you go ahead and purchase a television from our electronics partner Samsung and it can be used 24 hours a day at the standard per kwh rate!
 

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,027
1,611
I was going to bring this up in my previous post, but I decided to wait for someone else to do so.

Even though there are many parts of the country where competition is pretty much non existent, the best way to deal with that issue is deregulate and make it easier for more competition. Even in these places there is still more than one option.

A better solution for oversight would be to allow local communities to create their own oversight committees that report to the Feds. Just the presence of these committees alone would eliminate some of the issues you addressed, including issues of "fairness", "access", and "limits"

Unfortunately competition has not done that in many areas. I am not saying that net neutrality is the answer---or that the FCC should or should not get involved but you can't just blindly say competition will solve everything when there are clearly situations where cost considerations are such that competition just does notachieve the desired result.
 

AriesGodofWar

SatelliteGuys Pro
Dec 22, 2007
432
0
Fenton, Mo
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.

Ding, Ding, Ding.......we have a winner. You are exactly correct. This is not about preventing ISPs from regulating internet traffic. Sure, that sounds good, but it is a red herring. The ISPs own their networks, who is anyone to tell them how to maintain them? But all that aside, this is indeed a Socialist power grab.

John Fund: The Net Neutrality Coup - WSJ.com

Excerpted from John Fund's column- The Net Neutrality Coup
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

I trust the government to be benevolent and not completely screw something up like I trust a cheating, lying, ex-girlfriend. The government is not a benevolent organization and the Federal Government should only have those limited enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution. Which does not provide the authority to create the FCC, Department of Energy, Department of Education, or any other unauthorized government boondoogle and affront to liberty.
 
Last edited:

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,027
1,611
I think this is just another thread that has descended into political rhetoric. too bad since there are some real issues to be discussed.
 

empiretc

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 4, 2008
1,657
51
Thanks for bringing this up. My cost per kwh has gone up 49% in the last two years. There is only one supplier and they can charge what they choose. No one is knocking down the door to get into this market as the startup costs are too high.

But that really isn't the point. Actually, it made me think of something else. What if the electric company charged you based on what you used electricity for, haha (sounds funny, right?) Using AC? Your bad. That costs 50% more! Have a non-cfl light bulb in your bathroom? That will be 33% more. Do you own a Panasonic TV? Sorry, those cost 120% more to run and can only be operated between the hours of 8 AM and 8PM. However, through a special deal we are offering we will give you $100 cash back if you go ahead and purchase a television from our electronics partner Samsung and it can be used 24 hours a day at the standard per kwh rate!

Agreed, but the electric providers give you a discount with the more electricity you use, lol. Still amazes me how all my neighbors pay different rates.

I really do see full tiered services going into effect . TW has already been testing them in select markets for the past few years. Right now you can choose between Lite, Standard & turbo and it is all unlimited. I can see them end up offering a VOD package in the future. Just wait, we will see RR + Netflix or DSL featuring Amazon VOD. One thing is for sure, prices are going to go up.

ISPs have been struggling for years with the torrent debacle, but the only thing we ever heard was the RIAA crying foul. The ISPs were left on their own to manage the huge overhead caused by the enormous amounts of data being transferred, and still remain fair. They will have to do the same for video services, but now that is effecting some people with deep pockets and well rubbed elbows.
 

DodgerKing

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 14, 2007
16,776
26
SoCal
Unfortunately competition has not done that in many areas. I am not saying that net neutrality is the answer---or that the FCC should or should not get involved but you can't just blindly say competition will solve everything when there are clearly situations where cost considerations are such that competition just does notachieve the desired result.
Blindly? No!

Better? Yes?

Competition and deregulation makes it better. More regulation makes it worse. And this is true for most things. I am glad they deregulated the phone industry or else we would be nowhere near were we are now. I am glad my home phone is no longer owned by the phone company and my long distance and local service is fixed with only one option.

The internet comes along and from the start it is one of the most successful, free marketed, openly accessed, and greatest optioned thing one can get. The LAST thing I was is the government circumventing that. Yes, the FCC regulating what providers can do will make it worse for more, not better.

Look how quickly this has grown and how quickly many areas grown with several options. Just because some regions don't grow as fast or they are growing faster than they can handle, FCC involvement will not fix it. Allowing the market to fill those voids will.
 

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,027
1,611
Blindly Yes. But like I said tghis thread has clearly gone beyond any seblance of being ysefulk. People are just repeating the same arguments over and over again.
 

DodgerKing

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 14, 2007
16,776
26
SoCal
Ding, Ding, Ding.......we have a winner. You are exactly correct. This is not about preventing ISPs from regulating internet traffic. Sure, that sounds good, but it is a red herring. The ISPs own their networks, who is anyone to tell them how to maintain them? But all that aside, this is indeed a Socialist power grab.

John Fund: The Net Neutrality Coup - WSJ.com

Excerpted from John Fund's column- The Net Neutrality Coup

I trust the government to be benevolent and not completely screw something up like I trust a cheating, lying, ex-girlfriend. The government is not a benevolent organization and the Federal Government should only have those limited enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution. Which does not provide the authority to create the FCC, Department of Energy, Department of Education, or any other unauthorized government boondoogle and affront to liberty.
I was trying to bring this up without getting too political, but could not figure out how to do so, and was going to mention Fund myself. Unfortunately politics is involved so there is no way around discussing this without involving politics.

It is important to realize the intentions and philosophy of McChesney. It does give us insight into the purpose of Net Neutrality
 

DodgerKing

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 14, 2007
16,776
26
SoCal
Blindly Yes. But like I said tghis thread has clearly gone beyond any seblance of being ysefulk. People are just repeating the same arguments over and over again.
Only because we are trying to do so without bringing up politics. I can only go so far as to say why the free market is BETTER (not perfect) than government regulation without getting into politics.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

bacchus101

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 10, 2006
500
19
.
Deregulation has been a scourge on every front from my position (and I won't even get into the recent financial collapse.)

The phone system was deregulated. I still only have one local option. They charge me what they want. Take it or leave it.
The electric system was deregulated. Now I pay some of the highest electric prices in the lower 48. Again, take it or leave it.
The airlines were deregulated. Now I can't fly out of my local airport (It costs $450 to fly to a hub as now there is only one monopolistic airline) so I have to drive 8 hours to a metro airport with reasonable rates. At least with that one I have an easier choice. I just choose not to go anywhere.

I am sure deregulation is great if you live in Beverly Hills as you have plenty of people fighting for you dollars across the board. Whereas where I live, the infrastructure is crumbling and everything costs more than it did ++ inflation.
 
Last edited:

DodgerKing

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 14, 2007
16,776
26
SoCal
Deregulation has been a scourge on every front from my position (and I won't even get into the recent financial collapse.)

The phone system was deregulated. I still only have one local option. They charge me what they want. Take it or leave it.
Really? You cannot get Cell? You cannot get VoIP? You cannot get phone through cable?

Even if you only have one company you can still chose your service and your long distance provider. The truth of the matter is since deregulation the average cost for COMPARABLE service has gone down when adjusted for inflation.

In actuality it has worked.
The electric system was deregulated. Now I pay some of the highest electric prices in the lower 48. Again, take it or leave it.
That is because it wasn't really deregulated in most areas. Long term government contracts, incentives, subsidies, and lack of choice is not true deregulation.
As for myself, my electric bill has gone down. But, our utility company has to charge by tiers partially regulated by the state and federal government. This in no way constitutes deregulation
The airlines were deregulated. Now I can't fly out of my local airport (It costs $450 to fly to a hub as now there is only one monopolistic airline) so I have to drive 8 hours to a metro airport with reasonable rates. At least with that one I have an easier choice. I just choose not to go anywhere.
Again, average rates when adjusted for inflation has gone down. Unfortunately, just like utilities, the airlines are not really deregulated. Just look at what has happened to Spirit Airlines. Anytime an airline wants to compete and offer a really affordable means of travel, the government or unions step in and limit what they can do.

I am sure deregulation is great if you live in Beverly Hills as you have plenty of people fighting for you dollar across the board. Whereas where I live, the infrastructure is crumbling, everything costs more and without some sort of net neutrality the internet might not even be a viable option in a few years - which for me means I'll either have to move or find another line of work.
You can also add auto insurance, life insurance, ex.
 

bacchus101

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 10, 2006
500
19
.
Really? You cannot get Cell?

No tower. So no. I can hit the Canadian towers, but then it costs $5 a minute.

You cannot get VoIP?

Have you tried making a VOIP call over a fixed wireless 900MHZ 1MB DL (advertised, not reality) connection? It is funny unless you actually want to communicate with someone.

You cannot get phone through cable?

I've heard about this cable stuff. They were running the lines back in '82 and stopped about 1,500 feet from my house. They haven't been back...
 

bacchus101

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 10, 2006
500
19
.
R
Even if you only have one company you can still chose your service and your long distance provider.

You mean I can get AT&T over Fairpiont lines and thus there is competition which in effect lowers long distance rates? Gee, why would Fairpoint allow that?
 

Jim5506

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
7,469
2,218
Lubbock, Texas
Not only must Congress pass law giving the FCC the authority or regulate ISP's, Congress has specifically not passed such laws that were proposed, implicitly telling the FCC keep your hands off, but as in many other areas Obamas minions choose to do as they please regardless of the law or the Constitution.

If you don't want political comments don't discuss anything dealing with the government - it's ALL about politics.

As long as the discourse remains civil - let 'er rip.
 

jonesy99

SatelliteGuys Guru
Jul 24, 2010
129
0
champlain valley ny
You mean I can get AT&T over Fairpiont lines and thus there is competition which in effect lowers long distance rates? Gee, why would Fairpoint allow that?
Yea the vast electronic wasteland that is northern new england. I should note that on the western side of lake champlain, it gets much better.
When at and t took over unicel, thy were 'supposed' to invest in the infrastructure, havent seen it yet. Have to go 20 miles south to get a 3g signal from burlington.
The concept of net neutrality sounds good, but as with other things that 'sound good' there is always other motivation. Bernie Sanders comes to mind.
 

jonesy99

SatelliteGuys Guru
Jul 24, 2010
129
0
champlain valley ny
Deregulation has been a scourge on every front from my position (and I won't even get into the recent financial collapse.)

The phone system was deregulated. I still only have one local option. They charge me what they want. Take it or leave it.
The electric system was deregulated. Now I pay some of the highest electric prices in the lower 48. Again, take it or leave it.
The airlines were deregulated. Now I can't fly out of my local airport (It costs $450 to fly to a hub as now there is only one monopolistic airline) so I have to drive 8 hours to a metro airport with reasonable rates. At least with that one I have an easier choice. I just choose not to go anywhere.

I am sure deregulation is great if you live in Beverly Hills as you have plenty of people fighting for you dollars across the board. Whereas where I live, the infrastructure is crumbling and everything costs more than it did ++ inflation.
Deregulation....funny,,, wasnt that the reason at and t got split off from ma bell way back? looking at it now, youd never know, both verizon and at and t would like you to think they are the only game in town. From what I've heard, fairpoint is just a mess, trying to take over all the phone lines on northern new england from verizon, in the process inheriting all the problems verizon had.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top