DISH Network statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Greczkowski]

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."

 

[iliketj]

you would think dish would oppose this as they're losing subs to the internet.

 

[Bobby]

you would think dish would oppose this as they're losing subs to the internet.

Well, there is this thing called Sling Adapter that utilizes the internet.......

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

DISH Networks future is the internet.

 

[DustoMan]

Well, there is this thing called Sling Adapter that utilizes the internet.......

And the DISHOnline VOD and the DishOnline.com website.

 

[MikeD-C05]

DISH Networks future is the internet.

Sounds very ominous Scott. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[TalonDancer]

DISH Networks future is the internet.

Maybe someone needs to tell Charlie that being competitive in the fast paced, innovation driven internet market is a little more challenging than competing with a handful of 20th century communications dinosaurs (i.e. DirecTV, cable companies, etc.).

Talon Dancer

 

[dspon]

I think everyone needs to investigate this a little more. Sounds good but I believe its about power and the gov't having control over the internet, let alone the fact that when regulations are put in place someone(usually tax Payers) has to pay for this. Time to pull back the sheeps clothing. This was defeated in the senate but somehow there still trying to puy it in place.

 

[myron243]

dspoon is correct. This is not about anything except power and control. At least with it having been defeated in the Senate maybe an oversight committee will rein in the FCC.

Sent from my EVO with Tapatalk

 

[aklarvanto]

FCC controlled Internet? Sounds very exciting.....hmmmm...NO THANKS!!

 

[DishSubLA]

Yeah, it's about the power of the Cable Cos. and the ISP's who also happen to provide their own competitive TV services (Uverse; FiOS). They want to (and, in fact, have, and this is why the FCC is now forced to address the issue due to complaints from customers and lawsuits) selectively slow down any internet connection to Netflix, Hulu, etc., any of their competition claiming network efficiency or discouraging Bit-torrents so that honest users have no reliable alternative but to keep on paying cable and the telcos for their TV. Net Neutrality means that ISP's can NOT selectively slow down anyone's speed or restrict the bandwidth nor can they selectively decide that they will slow down Netflix downloads because they feel like it.

Dish has invested in Google TV and has been on the side of Net Neutrality from the beginning. I think they know they have no choice but to embrace Netflix and kiss goodbye their OVERPRICED PPV's and ON LINE content, or go out of business. This way, there is less reason for Dish subs to cancel subscriptions and buy a Roku, etc. All that will soon be in every Dish box in the form of Google TV, "so stay with us," Dish will say.

Far too many people don't understand Net Neutrality and the fact that the vast majority of our free market private industry businesses SUPPORT Net Neutrality because it provides COMPETITION, key to any free market society, and the ONLY one who oppose Net Neutrality are the cable cos. and telcos: what a coincidence!. Net Neutrality would mean everyone would have to win subscribers by the quality of their services and because the ISP's squeeze their bandwidth to the competition making any real consumer choice and price competition to cable and Uverse and FiOS, that is just beginning, IMPOSSIBLE in the long run.

If the Cable Cos. and Telcos operated FAIRLY, HONESTLY and with the spirit of competitive free market heritage of our nation, the government would NOT need to be involved. But, they got caught, and tried stupid excuses, and, in the case of Comcast, flouted the FCC's very limited and NON-regulated approach in coming to some kind of solution that would NOT involve regulation (the FCC is on record as NOT wanting to regulate and even acted as if they were in the ISP's pocket), but Comcast just couldn't contain their arrogance and now the FCC will eventually regulate as they can do so WITHOUT any legislation from Congress who would have to craft a bill to explicitly forbid the FCC from doing it, and that is never likely to pass nor survive a court review.

Net Neutrality is guaranteeing free market competition that has always worked well for our country.

 

[tomcrown1]

Good post dishsubla. Also if we do not have a free and open net say good bye to this site as Scott can not pay the blackmail fees to each portal provider,

 

[HDRoberts]

FCC controlled Internet? Sounds very exciting.....hmmmm...NO THANKS!!

To me, that is a far, far better proposition than ISPs determining what content I can access.

 

[greg47]

Well I shudder to think of a Time Warner,Comcast,Verizon or other company controlled internet, considering how they have screwed those of us C band owners. The internet should be free with no one company controlling its future or blocking/restricting access to others. The Cable giants are going to be stressed in the near future as more people turn to the internet for their streaming entertainment. They will drop their local cable package in favor of being able to have a choice in what they get for free and pay for to watch.

 

[Islandguy43]

Perhaps metered internet that TWC wanted to adapt a couple years ago wasn't so bad. Since then my stand alone unlmited roadrunner went from $37.95 a month to the $54.95 (almost 50%) a month they are charging now if you don't bundle with other video services. Basically they are forcing you to buy a bundle.

 

[TheKrell]

Right on DishSubLA!

 

[thebaggins]

I totally agree with DishSubLA:up:clap

 

[aklarvanto]

As a content provider and system operator myself I worry that when government gets involved in regulating Internet they may as well control what content you can have and who can register and lease domain names. This has been going on in Europe for long time and we Americans have enjoyed freedom to register whatever com, net or org address we wish. Should new untold upcoming steps to further regulate Internet be similar to FCC regulations they already have in place with radio stations, it sure will make hard or even impossible to average people to start website their own in the future. Maybe it will not happen but I just don't like when big brother gets involved.

 

[TheForce]

The only solution I see to this is for the government to break up the companies so that incompatible businesses must be run by separate companies. Comcast is a Cable TV company that got into the business of ISP. They need to separate the business of cable TV and that of internet service provider. Same with AT&T, separate the business of ISP and phone services. Now there is one remaining conflict of interest and that is the hard lines and head end assets. These may need to also be separated into a company as well.

The issue of net neutrality is ( the way I see it ) two fold. One where the ISP's are creating an unfair restriction on users of their services that do business that competes with another section of the ISP's business. i.e. Netflix competes with cable TV. The second is rates. The ISP wants to charge additional rate to the competitor for bandwidth based on who they are as opposed to the quantity of data pushed through the lines. Then the service ( Netflix) has to charge the consumer additional to cover this cost. All at the same time Comcast wants to charge it's customer additional rates for the additional data it pulls from the service. I think it is quite fair to charge the end user cost of data transfer based on the amount he uses, like an electric bill. But he shouldn't be charged an additional fee or higher rates if that data comes from Netflix vs. You Tube. That would be like paying more for your electric because you used the electric for a big screen TV vs. a microwave oven.

The second issue is where your ISP, say Comcast, throttles back your delivery to make the competitor look bad.


While the government could regulate this in a new way called Net Neutrality, I have no interest in having the government get their foot in the door in regulating the internet in this way. Once they start, it will get worse and worse until some of the negative impact mentioned previously happens and make no mistake about it, give the government a little power and before you know it, the government will have the greatest restrictions on the internet in the world. This is why the solution to the problem the ISP's have created is to bust them up so there will be no insidious practice of double billing a customer for the same service, or throttling back the data based on the service you access, mostly because that service competes with another division of the ISP.

 

[myron243]

Here are some interesting tidbits from today's WSJ for those who may think the FCC is really, really looking out for consumers.

Regarding usage based pricing the chairman supports it.

WASHINGTON—The top U.S. telecommunications regulator on Wednesday endorsed the idea that broadband providers could charge extra for providing heavy Internet users with lots of online video or data-heavy services such as videogames.

Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, backed "usage-based pricing" while outlining proposed rules that would bar Internet providers from deliberately tampering or slowing legal Web traffic.

While the above says there should be no deliberate tampering or slowing of traffic there is this further down in the article:

Mr. Genachowski's proposals would require Internet providers to tell consumers how they are managing traffic on their networks, and bar "unreasonable discrimination" of traffic. They also include more limited restrictions for mobile networks, which are already straining under the load of increased data traffic.

Who defines "unreasonable discrimination"? And how is the consumer to be informed and by who? There are so many providers between point A & B on the internet just whose feet get held to the fire? Does each and every ISP have to include in their Terms of Use all the possible traffic control schemes of all the other providers they inter-connect with?

Well, one thing in my favor is at 73 I won't have to put up with it a hell of a lot longer but my kids and grandkids sure will.