Charlie Ergen Issues Statement on Net Neutrality Rules

[Tyralak]

More government intrusion.

Wow. What an enlightening and detailed post. You sure set me straight.

Something a lot of you tend to be forgetting, is that in virtually any other industry, the actions of some of these ISPs would be beyond illegal. We have antitrust laws on the books that are there to protect the marketplace against these kind of cinflics of interest and collusion. Yet, many people think those laws shouldn't apply to the Internet. As I mentioned previously, without the 'government intrusion' in 1996 with OTARD, satellite would have stayed a niche market as big cable companies struck deals with HOAs and municipalities to ban dishes. While yes, more often than not government regulation causes problems, it isn't always bad. There are some situations where it's appropriate.

 

[Peter Parker]

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?

As I understand the only previous test was a specific case involving Comcast, Voyager 6's link discusses that fairly well.


BTW I am not saying this will hold up just that the issue is nott hat cewrtain.

 

[DodgerKing]

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.

Not if you allow competition and eliminate much of the regulation.

 

[DodgerKing]

Wow. What an enlightening and detailed post. You sure set me straight.

Something a lot of you tend to be forgetting, is that in virtually any other industry, the actions of some of these ISPs would be beyond illegal. We have antitrust laws on the books that are there to protect the marketplace against these kind of cinflics of interest and collusion. Yet, many people think those laws shouldn't apply to the Internet. As I mentioned previously, without the 'government intrusion' in 1996 with OTARD, satellite would have stayed a niche market as big cable companies struck deals with HOAs and municipalities to ban dishes. While yes, more often than not government regulation causes problems, it isn't always bad. There are some situations where it's appropriate.

What we think is that the government needs to be involved less, not more. Eliminate much of the regulation, allow more competition, including allowing other providers to use existing lines (cable lines, power lines, fiber lines, ex) would reduce the need for the government to get involved to begin with.

In my area alone, I can get internet through FiOs, TWC, multitude of VOIP through existing cable lines, satellite, and at least 4 different cell providers. All of these companies being allowed to freely compete for the service of everyone in the area prevents any one company for putting ridiculous restrictions or selling too much bandwidth for them to handle (thus the need for restrictions). Which is one reason why I am paying for 15 mbps internet and consistently getting well over 30.

 

[DodgerKing]

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.”

Charles can always start his own internet service and he will not have to worry about the FCC getting involved. In fact, if he did, I bet he would not be applauding

 

[DodgerKing]

I don't know why people whine so much about federal regulations.
They come into play when they are needed and go out when they are no longer needed.

This is the funniest thing I have heard. I cannot stop laughing.

The truth is, the come into play due to corporate lobbying to eliminate competition in order to increase their profits. Or they come into play based on a false sense of need or a fear of what MAY happen (usually never does).

They go out ONLY when other corporate lobbying entities push the government into doing so.

The truth is, we become more and more regulated, less efficient, and more regulations come into play every year than are eliminated

 

[Tyralak]

What we think is that the government needs to be involved less, not more. Eliminate much of the regulation, allow more competition, including allowing other providers to use existing lines (cable lines, power lines, fiber lines, ex) would reduce the need for the government to get involved to begin with.

In my area alone, I can get internet through FiOs, TWC, multitude of VOIP through existing cable lines, satellite, and at least 4 different cell providers. All of these companies being allowed to freely compete for the service of everyone in the area prevents any one company for putting ridiculous restrictions or selling too much bandwidth for them to handle (thus the need for restrictions). Which is one reason why I am paying for 15 mbps internet and consistently getting well over 30.

I might agree with you if most people had as many choices as you do. The fact is, most people are lucky to have one or possibly two providers. I have a choice of AT&T or Comcast where I live. Now, let's say Comcast blocked (or made nearly unusable) Netflix so as to eliminate competition with it's video services, and AT&T blocked Vonage and other VoIP providers to prevent competition with it's phone services. Now, what if I wanted to subscribe to both of those services? I'd be out of luck. When you have very limited choices, the ISP can really do whatever it wants.

 

[DodgerKing]

I might agree with you if most people had as many choices as you do. The fact is, most people are lucky to have one or possibly two providers. I have a choice of AT&T or Comcast where I live. Now, let's say Comcast blocked (or made nearly unusable) Netflix so as to eliminate competition with it's video services, and AT&T blocked Vonage and other VoIP providers to prevent competition with it's phone services. Now, what if I wanted to subscribe to both of those services? I'd be out of luck. When you have very limited choices, the ISP can really do whatever it wants.

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"

 

[mike123abc]

One example of this problem is the Comcast/L3(netflix) issue:

Comcast of course has the exclusive pipe to their customers. The customers may have other high speed choices available, but probably a significant number do not have resonable choice. For example they may have DSL limited to 768k or something, not really any high speed choice.

Comcast had been using/paying L3 to transmit data from their customers. In doing so L3 had special access points around the comcast network to facilitate the data transfer and not create bottle necks by comcast having to transmit data across its network to a single L3 access point.

Comcast has a peering agreement with TATA for anyone that does not have a peering agreement with Comcast to send to comcast.

Essentially the dispute is that L3 wants to start sending Netflix in via the special access points they have set up with Comcast and not go through TATA. TATA does not have the capacity in its connections with Comcast to handle the netflix additional data.

What is the resolution of this via net neutrality? L3 is mad because Comcast made them pay to use the special access points for netflix delivery. L3 is free to set up a peering agreement with TATA to send netflix down, but there is the capacity problem.

I do not believe any of this has been addressed by the FCC net neutrality statements. Comcast is not treating L3 special, they are free to go through TATA. But, Comcast is making money on the back end to speed up delivery via special access points.

 

[bacchus101]

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.

I have exactly two choices for "high speed" internet. Satellite or Fixed wireless. Both are over $45 per month for 1MB/256k. Deregulation would do nothing as there isn't the market in this and many rural areas to start.

As for the idea of competition, I liken it to the airline industry today. Sure, there is plenty of competition in the New York, Chicago and Los Angeles markets but not so much out of Flagstaff Arizona, Bangor Maine or Hickory North Carolina. Deregulation did not increase competition in small markets. Actually, it caused many small markets to all together lose air service and for the majority of small markets, service choice. Now we have the airlines unilaterally adding a tiered fee structure on top of the market dictated price for bags, snacks and even to use the bathroom. While not collusive, it in effect sticks it to the consumer. This is exactely what ISPs will begin doing, as a group. First AT&T will start charging Netflix data fees and give a little wink to its competitors. A week later, Sprint will do the same. A week later Time Warner will do the same. Eventually, everyone will be doing it and then it will just be accepted that if you use Netflix it costs more, even if you are not using more data.

This is how the "free market" seems to work and it is not always good for customers (but always good for shareholders.)

 

[guapoharry]

It's interesting that the topic of Charlie is not viewed favorably in these forums, oftentimes.

So then, what's Charlie's angle on Net Neutrality? (Read between the lines of his statement)

Charlie is looking out for you and me and the little guys, I guess...

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

No Charlie knows that the future is internet based broadcasting.

 

[empiretc]

for major cities, without a doubt. of course, this will lead to tiered service packages and almost guaranteed higher prices. we already pay over $60/mo for internet, but i can see them offering basic email/ browing, streaming, etc. type packages.

there is good and bad that will come of this. 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.

a cell company in the are 'cricket' offers tiered service for the mobile internet service. the advertise the mid range package for 'social networking'. they literally BLOCK access to the major SN sites in the entry level package. if you want to use those services, you need to pay the price.

i can see netflix, amazon, hulu, etc.. cutting deals with different ISPs which can cause problems. price fixing can become a big problem in a hurry....

 

[Foxbat]

If I want to go into business, I can contract with our Metronet for a 1 Gigabit fiberoptic connection to their FO MAN. South Bend has tons of fiber (major interstate commerce intersection, between Chicago and Cleveland) so if I can get 1 Gb to my neighborhood, I'd try and sign up 49 of my neighbors so we could all split the $1,000/mo the connection would cost. I'd pay $20/mo for 20 Mbps Internet; wouldn't you? And, best of all, it isn't AT&T, or Comcast, or Frontier/Verizon, so there wouldn't be the conflict of interest that would influence an ISP to throttle media content.

Of course, the initial costs of running a lateral connection to the fiber ring would eat up our son's college fund, but I'm sure he'd understand the need for speed!

 

[DishSubLA]

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.

What are you talking about? The FCC's authority to prevent another party, such as an HOA, access to options and COMPETITION is supporting the FREE MARKET in that consumer choice shall NOT be limited. You would have us all forced to subscribe to cable because cities, landlords and HOA's get something in return for banning satellite and access to choice and competition that really is the FREE MARKET. You're not making sense.

 

[DishSubLA]

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.

Yeah. Like Midnight Basketball really had little to do with playing basketball at midnight, yet the detractors always went around saying that the program was only funding basketball games to be played at midnight. DUUUH! These people scream with the same knowledge and intelligence as the late Emily Lateilla ("Oh, Nevermind".)

 

[DishSubLA]

The original case against Comcast was that Comcast was intentionally slowing down bit torrents. The Court ruled that ISP's do have the right to regulate traffic (i.e. speeds) on their networks. The Court specifically said that the FCC did not have the authority from Congress to regulate the internet providers under current law. It definitely looks like the FCC has challenged the Court's ruling on "net neutrality" without getting new authority from Congress. This is going back to court real fast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html

Actually, I doubt it will go back to court as the ISP's got some of what they wanted (now, instead of slowing the connection to a compeitor, they will just have a HUGE price by usage plan that work as the financial bottleneck to the net: too expensive to download more than a movie or two via Netflix or others like Hulu, etc., but cheaper to buy Comcast or cable co. PPV content, and, oh, forget any justice on their wireless networks), and I think this time they know if they push-back, the FCC may just well declare ISP's as Common Carriers under Title II and the game is OVER for ISP's and they would be FULLY regulated by the FCC, not what they want in the end. This is really one for the ISP's and not so much for the consumer. The ISP's are powerful in D.C., and they seem to always get their way and this Democratic majority of the FCC seems little different than it Republican predecessor.

 

[DishSubLA]

Now my feelings on it is data should be data. Its bits and bytes being transmitted.

There should be no difference in price for the data I am receiving or sending because of what that data might contain (if its web traffic, watching Netflix or listening to Slacker) its still just data.

I have no issue with my ISP having different levels of service based on the amount of data you download. However I am against isp's fighting or slowing down traffic from one ISP to another just because what that data may contain. I pay to access the Internet, not the select sites that my ISP may want me to visit. I am paying for data. If I want to watch Netflix I should be able to.

Thats my take.

Agreed. But I would add that tiered service would be far better than billed as per usage as that can be used as the financial equivalent of slowing a connection down: the ISP's would make it very expensive to download more than a movie or two and forget about streaming via Sling as that would cost far too much for anyone's pocketbook. Do you see were the pricing by usage is going? This is what the ISP's wanted. Tiered pricing represents the worst of the best compromise. Frankly, the FCC should grow a pair and declare the ISP's Common Carriers under Title II. Of the ISP's could divest themselves of all ownership of media content or any internet sites (sarcastically). Then they could be free to charge what they want, and it would be reasonable because they would have no interest in pricing to prevent access to the competition.

Now, people like Netflix probably should share some of the cost for the backbone due to the massive increase in traffic caused by such on-line downloading, but it could be reflected on the fees Netflix and others charge instead of leaving an ISP to say, "No, you pay the full cost to the backbone," as another way of slowing down the downloads. Shared cost, between Netflix et al, and ISP's for the backbone, and both can price to recover costs. Yes, Netfilx fees would go up a bit, and ISP's would be free to Tier pricing to reflect usage. What we have been given now by the FCC (billing by usage, for one) is gonna make people question the economics of Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and even Sling, leaving cable, Uverse, and FiOS looking less expensive than all that competition.

The root problem is that we have allowed far too many mega-mergers of media companies who now work both sides of the street and now it is coming home to roost. The irony is that these mega-mergers and allowances to work both sides of the street INVITES more government regulation, and the corporations are willing to take it if they can make billions more. The legacy of smaller companies who work one side of the street who don't own everything creates an economy where the government does LESS regulating.

 

[DishSubLA]

First of all we must deal with the fact that more than likely the FCC does NOT have the authority to do what they have done. Congress can step in and and essentially strike down the FCC's regulations on Net Neutrality or maybe the courts will. In it's purest sense I suppose Net Neutrality would make sense. However anytime the government, Fed, State and Local get involved in regulating anything it usually becomes a bigger mess than it was before the government stepped in. As far as I can tell, and I am probably an average net user, I believe I am receiving the service I pay for, my connection speeds are adequate for my needs and I can even stream Netflix movies to my satisfaction. At this point in time I'm not so sure we need Net Neutrality, but maybe I miss the bigger picture...
Like many folks I have been using the internet since the beginning. I know the original AOL and Prodigy services were not really the internet but they were the closest folks not in the government got to the internet at that time. Now just about everyone has the internet at home and work. As far as I can see it has pretty much regulated itself and if left alone probably will continue to do so.

Ross

Until the FCC declares the ISP's as Common Carriers under Title II. And they should.

 

[Tyralak]

What are you talking about? The FCC's authority to prevent another party, such as an HOA, access to options and COMPETITION is supporting the FREE MARKET in that consumer choice shall NOT be limited. You would have us all forced to subscribe to cable because cities, landlords and HOA's get something in return for banning satellite and access to choice and competition that really is the FREE MARKET. You're not making sense.

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