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."

Comments

umm, ya got it backwards

[GMontag]

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.

Ironic

[mjh]

Just today I called up Earthlink to switch from my Time Warner Road Runner account to their competing service which exists entirely as a condition of the merger between the AOL & TW.

The Earthlink has a whole bunch of advantages of the RR account.

• It's cheaper
• It provides free, nationwide unlimited dialup
• It allows me to run servers
• It has no installation cost
• and it will soon have reasonably priced static IP addresses (additional $15/mo for Earthlink vs additional $150/mo for RR!)

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.

Re:So what?

[jc42]

> 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."

If you have any doubts..

[ftobin]

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:

The argument of the cable industry in favor of monopoly was simple: We need, they argued, incentives to risk the investment to build out cable TV. That build-out would be worth it to us only if we could be certain to recover out investment. This certainty would be adequately provided if we had complete control over the programming on our network. If we get to pick and choose the shows we run, and we get protected monopoly status in the local markets we run cable for, then we will have sufficient incentive to build out cable to secure our needs.

Not a bad deal, if you can get it. And even though "every major policy on how cable should be regulated recommended that cable operators be required to provide at least some degree of non-discrimatory access to unaffiliated program supliers," Congress and the FCC ignored these recommendations. Cable was given control over the physical infrastructure that build their network and over the code layer that made their network run.

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.