| |
to Well Bonded
Re: Subscribed to 25 meg service getting 25+ after an FCC complaint.Not to dash your hopes, but I would put my money on it being coincidence, especially with it happening so quickly. I could be wrong, though. |
|
 ·T-Mobile
|
said by Gabe1972:Not to dash your hopes, but I would put my money on it being coincidence, especially with it happening so quickly. I could be wrong, though. This is what I got this morning at 8:10 AM. We shall see how long it lasts and what Monday at 5:30 PM brings. 
|
|
 PSWired
join:2006-03-26
Annapolis, MD |
No such change for me after submitting a FCC complaint for the exact same reasons. |
|
| |
to Well Bonded
You should install an ad blocker. Depending on how often you're online those ads could be chewing through hundreds upon hundreds of MBs per month. Check out Adblock Plus, which is free. |
|
·T-Mobile
|
said by Gabe1972:You should install an ad blocker. Depending on how often you're online those ads could be chewing through hundreds upon hundreds of MBs per month. Check out Adblock Plus, which is free. It's really not a problem for me, the HN connection is a backup for my Century Link ADSL which has now become redundant as I brought in a 100/100 meg fiber connection through MegaPath pricey at almost a grand and a half per month, but the TOS allows me to resell the service, which is where I am going. What I discovered is out here CL only pushed ADSL 3Kf even though their service could go out to 12Kf. So I am offering wireless 10/2 for the same price as HN 25 $60 per month but with way lower latency and no data caps within reason. Currently I am at capacity, have a waiting list and the majority of my subscribers are ex-HN subscribers, with the remainder coming from WildBlue. |
|
| Well Bonded |
Well time for an update. Was contacted by HN on the 20th in reference to the FCC complaint and the rep explained due to an unexpected demand for Gen 5 service the beam I am assigned is well over capacity and they are working diligently to resolve the problem. The rep went on to say it should be resolved within a couple of weeks, but in the meantime to placate me my monthly fee would be reduced by $30 for six months. Well HN certainly did something because my connection went from 40+ megs during the day and 12 or so megs after 5pm EST, down to 3 megs during the day and .22 after 5pm EST. I contacted HN last night and had a rather long conversation with customer retention and they agreed to send me a box and instructions on how to dismantle the LNB and disconnect the modem to be shipped back, they also due to all of the problems I am having, waived any ETF. So I am putting HN in the rearview mirror and moving on. By the way I wonder if anyone realizes the acronym FCC cannot be posted in the official HN forum, I wonder what they are afraid of.  |
|
| |
It's not that they are afraid of anything, it's that it's a support forum, and threatening FCC, or even suggesting such to another user, or anything else like that, isn't considered support. FCC is just one of the abbreviations the forum won't allow. |
|
·T-Mobile
|
said by Gabe1972:It's not that they are afraid of anything, it's that it's a support forum, and threatening FCC, or even suggesting such to another user, or anything else like that, isn't considered support. The FCC is not a threat, it is a motivator for carriers who offer services they cannot provide and EchoStar is licensed by the FCC. FCC is just one of the abbreviations the forum won't allow. That may change based on the complaint I filed yesterday, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau is now looking into the blocking of that particular acronym by HN. They actually took it rather seriously and got back to me within an hour to get more details. Imagine the stink that would be raised if say, AT&T, prevented 411 from giving out the FCC's complaint line number? |
|
| |
Well, being that the Support Community is paid for by HughesNet, they can pretty much block anything on it that they wish. |
|
| |
@well...
Sorry to say buddy, but the Hughesnet Community is their property, they don't have to allow you to post there, and can do as they wish. The FCC can't enforce Hughesnet, nor anyone to change forum policies, roflmfao. |
|
|
| |
That's not for me to decide. |
|
PSWired
join:2006-03-26
Annapolis, MD |
to Gabe1972
said by Gabe1972:Well, being that the Support Community is paid for by HughesNet, they can pretty much block anything on it that they wish. AT&T’s telephone network is also owned and paid for by AT&T, but they can’t block SMS content at will. A small amount of research will show that privately owned public accommodations are very much subject to government regulation and control. |
|
·T-Mobile
1 edit |
said by PSWired:AT&Tâs telephone network is also owned and paid for by AT&T, but they canât block SMS content at will. A small amount of research will show that privately owned public accommodations are very much subject to government regulation and control. More so when they have 88 licenses granted to them by the FCC, 7 of which are up for review and renewal later this year. It wouldn't take too many negative public comments during the review period to hang up those renewals pending a full review by the Commission to determine if the licensee and parent company, EchoStar Holdings is providing a the services that are required by their grant from the FCC. » fjallfoss.fcc.gov/Genera ··· file_num» fjallfoss.fcc.gov/Genera ··· file_num |
|
| Well Bonded |
to C0RR0SIVE
said by C0RR0SIVE:Sorry to say buddy, but the Hughesnet Community is their property, they don't have to allow you to post there, and can do as they wish. That would be true if it was forum like DSLR as the FCC has little or no regulatory authority over DSLR, however the site in question is a support site owned and operated by a FCC regulated communications carrier, therefore the FCC is well within their regulatory authority to advise HN what they can, cannot and more importantly shall do, as it pertains to that site. As for allowing access, the rules require a carrier to provide access to any form of subscriber support, the carrier cannot discriminate who they provide access to. In the case of a forum, the rules do not require the posting of a subscribers message to be publically viewable, the carrier can make it private, read only, by the poster and employees in a manner similar to the direct support forums here on DSLR. Now that's not to say a carrier cannot ban someone from their "forum," but in doing so they risk the possibility of the person who was banned filing a complaint with the FCC or the FTC, and if either one of those agencies determine the subscriber was in fact banned, the carrier will be sent a notice of violation, along with a notice of implied liability and that second notice will burn a nice large hole through the carriers checkbook. The FCC can't enforce Hughesnet, nor anyone to change forum policies, roflmfao. Unfortunately you don't understand what a licensee agrees to when granted a Carrier License from the FCC, on the lower part of every Carrier License there is a notice titled conditions which binds the licensee to abide by the regulations put forth in the Communications act of 1934 and it's various amendments. As such, in this case, by being granted this Private Carrier License, I have agreed to follow all of the rules and regulations the FCC has, as they pertain to my grant. And HN and EchoStar have agreed to the FCC's conditions as well when granted their license's. It's part of the process one either agrees to comply, or no license and therefore no profits from reselling communications services. 
If there are any exemptions granted by the FCC they are added at the bottom of the license. 
In my case I applied for and was granted a statewide exemption from having to register my antenna(s) into the FCC's Antenna Registration System ($$) every time I need to set one up, I am still however required to comply with the FAA's antenna registration regulations, if my antenna exceeds a height of 200 feet AGL, which isn't going to happen anyhow as my COW's pneumatic mast is only 43 feet in height, equaling 50 feet with the antenna mounted on it.
|
|
| |
to PSWired
Oh, good lord. Blocking SMS content on a subscribed service is a totally different thing than not allowing an abbreviation on a privately run website. SMH. I mean, come on. Really? SMH. |
|
| Gabe1972 |
to Well Bonded
Way to go! Turn a discussion about what's allowed or not allowed on a privately run forum into FCC antenna registration regulations.
What on The Flying Spaghetti Monster's green earth does one thing have to do with the other? Nothing, that's what.
Hughes can choose to run their forum anyway they wish. If they want to ban the word tomato they can do so to their heart's content, and the FCC can't tell them otherwise. |
|
|
·T-Mobile
3 edits |
said by Gabe1972:Way to go! Turn a discussion about what's allowed or not allowed on a privately run forum into FCC antenna registration regulations. You didn't read the fine print did you, that is is a Carrier License and provides some details as to what a carrier agrees to when they accept one. By becoming a Private or Common Carrier, a business opens them self up to a whole world of regulations, many of which effect how the business shall interact with it's subscribers and the disclosures the business must make to it's subscribers, be it by phone, in a bill insert or over the net, and suppression of certain information can be seen as serious violation of those rules. I do believe this is why the FCC took the complaint I filed so seriously they see it as suppressing a subscribers right to invoke the FCC into a dispute Hughes can choose to run their forum anyway they wish. If they want to ban the word tomato they can do so to their heart's content, and the FCC can't tell them otherwise. That's up to the FCC to decide and decide they will in a couple of quarters. Then there are the CPNI violations on the HN site as well which the FCC will also rule on. And yes the FCC has the regulatory authority to order a carrier as to what they can, cannot and shall have on their official site, why do you think there are all of the legal's relating to disclosure, subscriber rights and CPNI on sites such as those operated by AT&T, Sprint and VZ, legal's and disclosures clearly missing on the HN subscriber support site. There are rules which those carriers be they Title I or Title II that they must be follow or the company can be fined and if licensed like EchoStar and HN have their grants suspended or revoked, more so when failing to follow the rules has a negative effect on the rights of subscribers to invoke third party intervention into a subscriber / carrier dispute and I am willing to bet HN in six months or so will discover that along with a substantial fine. |
|
| |
Considering the fact that acronym FCC is banned, but F.C.C. and Federal Communication Commission isn't, your argument is invalid. All Hughesnet has to do is tell the FCC that the acronym is banned as users kept violating community policies and kept making what is and was, considered to be threats.
BTW, Hughesnet doesn't own the community, it's rented space from another company.
Really, they could close the community entirely tomorrow morning with out notice to you, and there's not a damned thing you could do about it, nor could the FCC.
As far as CPNI, care to state how they are in violation of that? From my understanding, an ISP isn't required till, at the soonest, sometime this month to make mention of it anywhere, and I almost want to say that Congress actually struck the ISP portion down. VOIP, I am unsure about, however, whether you opt in or out, doesn't matter as the government still requires phone services to be logged in full. |
|
·T-Mobile
|
said by C0RR0SIVE:BTW, Hughesnet doesn't own the community, it's rented space from another company. Really, how do you explain this then? said by C0RR0SIVE:Sorry to say buddy, but the Hughesnet Community is their property, they don't have to allow you to post there, and can do as they wish. By the way the site is registered to: Hughes Network Systems 11717 Exploration Lane Germantown MD 20876 US So I get the feeling they actually own it and it's not a third party site.. Really, they could close the community entirely tomorrow morning with out notice to you, and there's not a damned thing you could do about it, nor could the FCC. It really doesn't matter to me, as of 01/02/18 I am no longer a HughesNet subscriber, we reached an agreement, they don't want me as a subscriber and I don't want them as an ISP, so I cancelled the service and they cancelled the contract with no ETF and the recovery kit should be by the end of this week. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Trolling
|
| |
to Well Bonded
Re: Subscribed to 25 meg service getting 25+ after an FCC complaint.C:\Users\>nslookup community.hughesnet.com
Server: dc-2012-01.scott.local
Address: 10.10.1.5
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: ssqng67387.lithium.com
Address: 208.74.205.227
Aliases: community.hughesnet.com
Unless Hughesnet owns lithium... LOL |
|
·T-Mobile
|
It's manned by HughesNet employees, it's operated under the HughesNet .com banner it may he hosted by someone else, but it's HughesNet's responsibility.
Either way it is the same as a telemarketer selling AT&T services, the telemarketer does something illegal AT&T gets fined by the FCC not the telemarketer.
None the less You cannot have it both ways, first you claim it's belongs to HughesNet, now you are trying to deny it belongs to HughesNet.
I guess you really don't know who it actually belongs to.
|
|
Well Bonded
2 edits |
to C0RR0SIVE
said by C0RR0SIVE:Considering the fact that acronym FCC is banned, but F.C.C. and Federal Communication Commission isn't, your argument is invalid. Thanks for that tip, I just visited the HN form and left a few tips for folks with slow speed problems using the agencies full name. It works, thanks again I appreciate it. One of the best parts of DSLR is, the owner of the site and the moderators don't suck up to mega-corporations and the allow members to mention about and link to third parties like the FCC to help resolve subscriber problems with those mega-corporations. Unlike those who try to divert posters here, off to somewhere else more sterile for HN. If you follow some of my posts, you will notice I have linked numerous times in the AT&T DSL and AT&T U-verse sub forums advising posters having problems with AT&T to contact the FCC. That can actually get me fired, but since AT&T cannot trace back my IP, because I use CL for wireline and T-Mobile for wireless, I'm not too worried and even if they did figure it out and nailed me, I would sue them in a heartbeat for suppressing my First Amendment rights. The fact that HN on their "official" forum bans the acronym FCC, even within links, indicates to me they know they are running a consumer scam and they consciously and intentionally want to suppress any regulatory oversight of their actions. Shame on them. |
|
(Software) OPNsense
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO
|
said by Well Bonded:I would sue them in a heartbeat for suppressing my First Amendment rights. AT&T is not the Government. First Amendment doesn't apply. |
|
·T-Mobile
|
said by Napsterbater:AT&T is not the Government. First Amendment doesn't apply. As my employer it applies unless it is included in my contract, which it is not spelled out as such. |
|
(Software) OPNsense
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO
|
No, First Amendment ONLY applies to Government.
AT&T is not the Government.
You ability to speak freely outside of work when not representing AT&T is in no way related or guaranteed by the First Amendment. Other Laws/Precedent and such sure/maybe depending on location and your employment agreement. But not the First Amendment. |
|
·T-Mobile
|
said by Napsterbater:No, First Amendment ONLY applies to Government. My attorney would disagree and AT&T would back down just to save face. But thanks for your useless information. |
|
(Software) OPNsense
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO
|
If that is the case, find a new one. But I suspect they understand it's not a First Amendment issue, but rather covered elsewhere by other means. said by Well Bonded: AT&T would back down just to save face. Still wouldn't be because of First Amendment issue. PR issue maybe, or just not financially feasible probably/maybe/likely And note I didn't say you wouldn't have a case. It just wouldn't be backed/supported by the First Amendment. Other Laws/Regs/Precedent/Contract sure/maybe. CNN has a decent write up: » www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/p ··· dex.htmlSome others. » corporate.findlaw.com/la ··· ted.html» www.marketplace.org/2017 ··· orkplace |
|
| |
What ever. |
|
| |
Yeah, I work at Amazon, just a regular old employee, but to work you are required to agree not to say certain things, ever, at all, to certain groups of people at any time, on or off the clock.
If caught, immediate termination, regardless of what your first amendment right is, or think it is. |
|
·
