HughesNet Satellite → Re: Subscribed to 25 meg service getting 25+ after an FCC complaint.

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.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.

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.

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 disputeThat'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.

Really, how do you explain this then?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..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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

My attorney would disagree and AT&T would back down just to save face.

But thanks for your useless information.

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.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.html

Some 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.

That's something I would never agree to just to be employed.

The first time I separated from T I was asked to sign a NDA, I told them to stick it in their ear, actually a somewhere a little further south but I think you know what I said.

If they wanted me to sign a NDA it should have been at the beginning of my employment, not when I was headed out the door, they whined but put up with it.

When they bought me back, again no NDA to be signed, slow learners I think.

The only thing I had to agree to and have to re-up every year is the Code of Corporate Conduct, which is so convoluted and contradictory it would never be enforceable according to my attorney.

But that's life in a big corporation.