DISH Network statement on Net Neutrality

[Suicyc0]

Yup, HUGE win for the carriers & the consumers get screwed. Now Time Warner will be free to do exactly what they tried here last year - charge "heavy" users more. So we end up paying twice for anything I transfer from Dish that happens to cross my Internet pipe.

Props to DishSubLA for his great post...

 

[whitewolf8214]

agree dishsubla

 

[yaz96]

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

umm...cable companies ARE the internet (ISP providers)

 

[TheForce]

I would rather pay for what I consume and if it cost too much let me decide how I should throttle back. I prefer to pay for my consumption than to have Comcast ( my provider) decide to restrict what websites I can get and what speed I dare watch streaming media. Let the speed rip and let me pay for the data I send and receive.

 

[DishSubLA]

Thanks. I did forget to mention what you all did: the use of tiered services to DISCOURAGE getting content online. In order to get a good streaming experience with the best possible quality (like Neflix's highest quality), one needs more bandwidth and that means a higher rate for your ISP services bill. By the time one pays for the high speed ISP service, then factors in subscription or one time viewing charges, a customer could see their total cost not being much of an advantage over cable, and may decide NOT to cut the cable cord, just what the cable ISP's want.

There is no clean way out of this mess without regulation. I would love the government NOT to be involved, but if we are to get competition, consumer choice good pricing, and an incentive for cable and on-line providers to be INNOVATIVE, then regulation it is.

 

[DishSubLA]

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.

Yes. Glad your brought up how the ISP's want folks like Netflix, etc., to pay for the additional traffic on the backbone. It is a great tool for keeping them away from cable TV, FiOS, Uverse customers.

The mergers have been my pet peeve of mine for decades. We have allowed this mergers that create companies that work both sides of the street and have incentive NOT to provide competitive providers with the channels they own (Comcast loophole is one good example). This proposed NBC Universal/Comcast merger is a great example of the WORST for the consumer possibility. Comcast has already publicly stated that they plan on stomping Hulu. Could it be because it would peel people away from Comcast cable TV service? Oh, and if they owned all that massive content, they really can deny on-line providers a whole lot of valuable content.

 

[dspon]

Please wake up. This goes far beyound what you are discussing. Do you want the gov't telling you what sites to go to on the net? The fcc czar ia a big fan of Chavez and has marxist views. They want to bring the "fairness doctine " into play. This will lead to propaganda. Gov't has a oversite position. That's all.

 

[tomcrown1]

Please wake up. This goes far beyound what you are discussing. Do you want the gov't telling you what sites to go to on the net? The fcc czar ia a big fan of Chavez and has marxist views. They want to bring the "fairness doctine " into play. This will lead to propaganda. Gov't has a oversite position. That's all.

The Internet provider will tell you what sites to go to. This site will be dead along with any sites that can nor pay. Ie you Like country and western forget it comcast will not allow it unless cma pays them.

The same goes for any Site can't pay $200.00 per month then no can go to your site.