HIGH-TECH COMPANIES ISSUE STATEMENT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES (1 Viewer)

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

Scott Greczkowski

Thread Starter
Welcome HOME to SatelliteGuys!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Sep 7, 2003
99,716
17,765
Newington, CT
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."
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Scott Greczkowski

Thread Starter
Welcome HOME to SatelliteGuys!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Sep 7, 2003
99,716
17,765
Newington, CT
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

A mighty and noble race originating on Altair IV.
Pub Member / Supporter
Jan 4, 2007
31,145
25,767
Fairfax, VA
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. :eek:
 

Voyager6

*Cancelled*
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 30, 2005
17,096
5,322
Wokeville
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.:eek:
 

Scott Greczkowski

Thread Starter
Welcome HOME to SatelliteGuys!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Sep 7, 2003
99,716
17,765
Newington, CT
The entire thing brewed because Comcast was blocking access to some services including file sharing.

That is what started this entire thing.
 

dishcomm

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 29, 2005
10,377
540
suburbia
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

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 5, 2005
16,375
4,081
Norris, TN
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? :confused:
 

riffjim4069

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Apr 7, 2004
35,187
279
SatelliteGuystonfieldville, U.S.A.
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

Thread Starter
Welcome HOME to SatelliteGuys!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Sep 7, 2003
99,716
17,765
Newington, CT
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!) :)
 

DishSubLA

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2006
5,238
1,096
Great point...I too am opposed to the FCC who is currently trying to reclassify the Internet as a Title II service.

And because of Comcast's greed, that is exactly what is going to happen. It will be a major backfire for Comcast, and other providers. There is no way this administration is going to let its much touted broadband initiatives die, nor will congress ignore the howls of their constitutes who may vote them out on this issue. It would have been nice to let the market handle things, if good people like some on this board, were in charge to make profitable, but reasonable and "net neutrality" like policies prevail, but the greed of the market, led most by Comcast, has demonstrated that it can't, and now we will all be stuck with the FCC regulating it as a utility.

All Comcast had to do was pretend to play nice, pay lip service and seem to be doing things in the direction of net neutrality like his competitors who knew the consequences if they dared go to court, but Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is the king of arrogant, hard-ball, take-no-prisoners CEO's (some things never change). Good job Mr. Roberts. You're going to make net neutrality a reality--as dictated by the FCC--really soon. Considering the companies piling on for the FCC to do so with no delay, and just about every voter in the country piling on,as well, its buh-bye to market forces, dear old Mr. Roberts. And all this whining and fighting to take it to court was supposed to be good how, Mr. Roberts.

Fortunately, I see Title II as being better for us, overall, but market control would have been a nice dream.
 

tomcrown1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 20, 2008
2,321
16
San Francisco
I guess their are folks who hate Satellite Guys. If the Isp are open to do as the please Scott can no longer afford this site. I know Comcast for one want to charge every Internet provider.

How about you pay for each site you go to.

Please do not complain if you have to pay $200.00 per month because there is no rule to prevent fees for our now open internet.
 

drdroo

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 20, 2005
1,195
0
Bangor, ME USA
Comcast wasn't regulating access to certain sites. What they were doing is they were throttling speed of Biitorrent during high loads, a largely upload-bandwidth centric service. I view a problem with how they went about it and their lack of transparency in talking about it. They were basically sending protocol resets to the computer maliciously, if memory serves. There are better ways to do this, things that other ISPs have employed during peak loads. Many ISPs use traffic shapers and balancers.

If Comcast were blocking or slowing Netflix in favor of their own streaming service, for instance, I would be against that. As far as actual content goes, there shouldn't be any restriction or significant degradation of access. However, this was a traffic management situation with a very bad PR problem attached to it. I feel the situation was 'corrected' as result of this bad PR and Comcast did the 250GB/mo cap and powerboost instead. The 250GB cap was another PR disaster because their CSRs were not trained and claimed 'It's unlimited..... but there's a limit.'.

I don't think this needs government intervention. The system worked. Customers left, people got angry, etc.
 

dishcomm

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 29, 2005
10,377
540
suburbia
On this issue I oppose any measure that is anti-consumer or restircts the open use of the internet.
It seems Comcast is anti-consumer and anti-competition.
One thing that has to go is these local telco and cable monopolies.
I also think Comcast is attempting to find ways to pit customers against each other by bandwidth use. Then take those complaints and come up with some complicated tier system, not a simple one where a consumer chooses to pay more on their own for more speed, but a system where serveral confusing layers of service become available. In essence making internet access more expensive.
 

drdroo

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 20, 2005
1,195
0
Bangor, ME USA
One thing that has to go is these local telco and cable monopolies.

This could go either way really. We deregulated electricity in this state a while ago and all it guaranteed was that we pay more, between distribution cost and then the actual power. The 'distribution cost' is now significantly more than the integrated cost of the monopoly.

I've nothing wrong with people having choice and getting rid of monopolies, I just think people really need to realize what that entails. You can get regular copper phone service in almost as many places as electricity because of that monopoly knowledge that there isn't going to be another phone company. The same goes with the cable company. It could effectively grind expansion to a halt in rural locations.
 
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)

Top