Slashdot Mirror
FCC: Cable ISPs Need Not Give Competitors Access
michael_cain writes: "Multichannel News is reporting that the FCC has ruled that cable companies providing high-speed data service
do not need to provide access to competing ISPs. Depending on whom you believe, this should lead to either (a) more rapid rollout of cable modem service since the cable companies don't have to share the revenues or (b) cable companies limiting the content and services you can reach over their IP infrastructure." And an Anonymous Coward writes: "Excite is running an article indicating that the FCC has exempted cable internet companies from having to share their lines to competition. Unlike telephone companies, cable companies are required only to share their lines when specifically told to by the government. As a condition of the AOL Time Warner merger, that company was forced to offer its consumers a choice of Internet service providers on its high-speed lines. Thursday's vote, classifying cable Internet as an "information service" rather than a telecommunications service that is subject to the open-access provision, makes sure that cable companies won't have to share anytime soon."
I largely agree with you analysis however i dont think you are right about a dead technology. I have to use cable at my new apt b/c dsl is not avialible. b4 i was paying $50 a month and my dl speed peaked at 80 K/s. Im paying $40 per month now with cable and am getting upwards of 250 K/s(Any time of the day). With a comparison like that i dont think cable is going to die anytime soon unless DSL providers get thier act together.
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
So one of the conditions of the AOL-Time Warner Merger was that they shared their lines with other ISPs and now this ruling says they do not have to? Something seems very fishy to me
This ruling is that cable providers do not need to share lines UNLESS they have been specifically told to do so, like AOL-Time Warner was told as a requirement of their merger.
So, in this case, the "big mean corp" is the one forced to share.
From the portion of the article fully visible above:
Unlike telephone companies, cable companies are required only to share their lines when specifically told to by the government. As a condition of the AOL Time Warner merger, that company was forced to offer its consumers a choice of Internet service providers on its high-speed lines.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
The Earthlink has a whole bunch of advantages of the RR account.
This is what competition does. I find it short sited that the government grants a monopoly to the cable company by not letting anyone else lay cable, but then doesn't turn around and enforce shared access! It's just luck that AOL/TW is being forced to open up their access.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
> So far, ATTBI is doing most of that.
So have they stopped blocking ports 25 and 80 in your neighborhood? Around here, those are blocked. You can't run your own SMTP or HTTP servers, at least not on the standard port.
Presumably this is because they're an "information service", by which they mean that if you start supplying information over their lines, you're a competitor and they'll shut you down.
Hereabouts, if you want to put your family pictures up on your own web site, you're in violation of the TOS. You're supposed to put them on the web space that they give you "for free".
Remember a few months back when people found that MSN was taking things like pictures from customers' web sites and using them in ads?
"All your information are belong to us."
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
If you have any doubts on which way the decision should have gone, you should read The Future of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig. In it, he explains how we accidentally got to this system of telephone companies being required to not control the content of the lines, even though they control the wiring and switches, but on the other hand, cable companies are allowed to completely control the wiring, connectors (cable boxes), and content.
The internet is the way it is (great, that is), due to lack of control over the content. For example, I can talk however I want to another computer on the internet, just as long as I abide by a few rules (e.g., using IP). The potential for innovation is great when you have an open-content and open-controls (routers, firewalls) system.
At line point AT&T owned the entire telephone network, being granted a government-approved monopoly. At this time, however, you weren't allowed to connect non-approved devices to any part of the network. This was done to ensure the 'stability' of the network (the trusted-client ideology). When the monster was broken up, these restrictions were removed, and this helped ensure the Internet could grow over the telephone lines (e.g., everyone could connect their own modem without needing approval).
With cable companies controlling every aspect of communication, however, the potential for innovation is extremely limited. Having to ask for permission to communicate on a network entirely destroys the freedom to experiment and try new ideas. This is why cable companies should be regulated like telephone companies.
Quoting from the book:
I could go on and on, but I strongly recommend you read "The Future of Ideas". Lessig is technically-aware, but he writes to layman. He is a master of the arguments for freedom in cyberspace.
It's interesting to also note that DSL, since it is deemed a communications network, is regulatory-required to be 'open'. This means the telephone companies are forced to allow other ISP competition to use DSL lines.
According to this article, AT&T Broadband will be offering Earthlink service to both Washington state and Boston, MA customers within the next few months.
I'm betting they're probably doing that so they aren't forced to as a condition of merging with Comcast, but hey, I'll take it... Earthlink's service has to be better than attbi.com! "Sure, we'll take half your bandwidth away, screw your reliability and charge you the same amount every month!!"
I have to disagree that the FCC missed the boat on their classification. Based on current regulation (Telecom Act of 1996), Cable-Modem service is an Information Service!
The FCC is just interpreting the laws that Congress has passed! And I agree with their interpretation. But that doesn't mean I agree that Cable companies should be able to keep their networks closed. I think that Data Services (people who deliver raw bandwith) should (probably) be regulated like Voice traffic and enforced competition. But the FCC really isnt' the one to blame, it's Congress. Write your Congress-person!
do you really have absolutely NO CLUE about how most firewalls work? as long as the original request was started internally, traffic can pass, but when the original request was started externally (ala http) boom, you run into a brick wall.
Or pehaps they are doing something a little more repsonsible like not allowing their users to connect to outside open relays. This allows them to stop spammers on the fly or at least make their network a little less attractive to spammers. I personally think that's a good thing.
I'd be pissed if their SMTP server, however, only allowed e-mail to be sent from the ATTBI.COM domain and I wasn't able to connect to outside SMTP servers, however that is not the case. In fact in my area I can both connect to outside mail servers and recieve connections on port 25. I'm just trying to dispell yet another conspiracy theory.
Also what disk space is used to send an e-mail. Just the queue, and that empties itself after the message is delivered.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum