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."
Is there really a difference anymore between data and telecommunications? How can the definition of the pipe be so important?
air and light and time and space
Then the FCC needs to set customer service guidelines. There is no incentive for the cablecos to screw over their customers since they have a monopoly in many areas.
The other day I spent 3 hours trying to get my fucking address changed. My bill still goes to my old residence (the modem works at the new house). I finally gave up because they are so damn stupid. It isn't worth my time.
Give me a choice or implement some sort of law that required them to resolve my issue in a timely manner or pay me for my time.
Damnit
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Y'know, I don't care about the cable regulation one way or the other as much as some people, but I think the FCC has really missed the boat on their classification of the service here. What people have demonstrated that they want, time and time again, is connectivity. We want a high-speed telecommunications service. If we want an information service too, we'll get a web browser, or something like that. We don't need the FCC to decide for us what we want; we know what we want.
It's the bundling of connectivity with services that is slowing all of these rollouts, IMHO - if we could get bandwidth from one company, and mail/news/web access from another, then the market would quickly determine the best bandwidth providers as well as the best mail/news/web access providers. This FCC action is limiting the scope of such unbundling, which seems like a step backwards to me.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Why would it be awful if there are "less mom & pop ISPs in the next 2 years"? Personally, I do not care whether I access my broadband connection thanks to a sweet little old lady or because it is provided by a cold, heartless corporation. I care only that the connection is reliable and inexpensive. On both counts, it is more likely that a large corporation will meet my needs.
Do not fear consolidation. So long as it does not accord power over price or facilitate oligarchic coordination, there is much virtue in allowing big old corps to take advantage of their economies of scale. Similarly, do not lionize atomistic competition and tiny competitors. They are the companies that go under long before your warranty has expired.
Though the eventual effect of the ruling may stink, it can't be denied that in light of existing regulations the decision-makers have a point. The primary use of the lines in cable systems at this point is indeed information delivery, whether it be TV signals or data, and there are no open-access laws for info delivery services. It's sort of like the ruling declaring PayPal is not a bank noted in an earlier Slashdot story today. What these decisions recognize is that the underlying legal structure needs to be updated to better recognize new technologies. I think we tend to expect these pseudo-legislative regulatory agencies like the FCC to be the top-level policy makers in their domains. In reality, the Congress needs to deal with these issues so that the regulatory agencies can put fair rules in place.
Arrgghhh, this actually burns me... I can't believe that cable companies are still allowed their monopolies in this day and age... With companies like Charter Communications predicting and running ads that they will be able to do everything for you in the video/audio spectrum in the near future (including phone service), how can you not classify them as a telecommunications company.
I feel that more than likely the only reason they haven't rolled out phone service is that they, don't want to be classified and regulated as a telecommunications service, and stuff like this only just keeps them going.
How long will it be before the is no difference between what "real" telecommunication companies and cable services. It's just the wire and the protocol that runs over it, but on top of that it's just data to both of them and they are providing the same services.
The best thing a "Bell" company can do right now is setup a partnership with a video distribution company (Blockbuster) and start rolling out "Video on Demand" services. I don't think it would be hard for something like DSL connections to split off a few channels for video.
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
Though the eventual effect of the ruling may stink, it can't be denied that in light of existing regulations the decision-makers have a point. The primary use of the lines in cable systems at this point is indeed information delivery, whether it be TV signals or data, and there are no open-access laws for info delivery services.
Once the information becomes bidirectional it can no longer reasonably be called "delivery."
But then, the entire notion of applying one set of rules to communications links that carry primarilly voice, vs. another set of rules for (often the same) infrastructure that primarilly carries digital (computer) data, vs. yet another set of rules for (often the same) infrastructure that primarilly carries video/entertainment data demonstrates how completely head-up-their-ass our government regulators really are.
It is absurd.
ISPs should operate under the same rules as Telcos and Cable providors, with the same priveleges (common carrier status) and the same requirements (allowing access by competitors to their wire/fibre/subspace beakon). Ideally, the latter should be nationalized (a dirty word, I know, but better than the mess we have now) and treated like a public road, with ISPs, Cable providors, and Telcos accessing the hardwire infrastructure under the same conditions and rules. Then, and only then, will we have real competition, and a flourishing market, in all of these arenas.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"This will never happen or if it does, it won't last long. The greatest way to lose a customer is to limit their choices with your product. The second my cable company says I can't visit xyz.com over their IP network, I get a new provider and tell my friends about it"
That's just the point. You won't be able to. Cable companies have a monopoly in their area because of the significant barrier to market involved with planting cable in an area. There's not enough ROI to justify the huge expense of laying the pipe when you're only going to get half the customers (on average).
Thus when your cable company (who probably runs their own ISP like Comcast or has an exclusive agreement with one partner ISP) says "You can't run this P2P app, or go to these questionable sites or newsgroups", you're going to either deal with it, or start hooking a phoneline back into your PC.
And yes, DSL is an alternative, but it's not available everywhere, so many people will have to deal with the possibility of choosing between a crappy cable monopoly and a dialup.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
In this case, is letting another company offer ISP services over your cable lines analogous to letting another company offer TV channels over your cable lines, or is it analogous to letting another long distance carrier complete calls to your phone customers.
Errr, you are aware both of these things happen? Cable companies are obligated to provide local channels on their cable service, and whenever you call someone on the other side of the country, a different long distance service completes the call. By your own argument, then, this ruling makes no sense.
You started off well, by ranting about the evils of analogies, but fell into the the trap yourself when you tried to draw some of your own.
Let's stay out of analogies. This ruling hands all the power to the local monopoly. This never works out well, and I don't see why this will work out well this time, either. (This isn't an analogy, this is an observed historical pattern.) Higher prices and lower service, here we come!
problem with technology and law is that we're dealing with new things.
Exactly.
It looks so stupid to me that the rulings have come out differently, largely as a result of myopic readings of earlier rulings on the telco industry before the advent of digital technology.
You can see where they're going to have to revisit and reverse the rulings because of two possible developments:
Since I'm on a roll right now, I'll just throw in my complaint that FCC regulation and sale of the EM spectrum does not appear to go into the visible. Wouldn't you rather that lighted billboards pay for the privilege of radiating into the environment?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
This is not precisely correct. Nearly all cable TV providers operate under municipally-granted monopolies. No other cable company is allowed to come in and offer competing service. (This is what telecomm deregulation was ostensibly supposed to enable but, rather than go through the arduous process of actually competing on an open playfield, all the telecomm companies simply merged.)
So yes, cable companies did build themselves with their own pennies, but they obtained those pennies from a government-maintained captive audience.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I think that the key difference between Cablecos and telcos is that Telcos, as far as POTS is concerned, are treated as common carriers: they have no editorial control over what goes over their lines, and have to file tariffs (rate cards) with the FCC and the state PUC which in turn need regulatory approval. Cablecos are not Common Carriers, so they get editorial control over what goes over their wires (ie, you don't get channels they don't supply, but in turn they have some liability for their content). The general feeling at the Federal and most state levels, from what I've seen, is that cable TV and internet services are not seen as sufficently vital to everyday life (as opposed to basic telephone service, which is considered to be such) for the providers to be granted Common Carrier status.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
I hope that the FCC is headed in a direction toward defining Internet Service as something distinct from Cable or Telephone Services.
Each service should have its own rules based solely on what is right for that service. Then, if companies bundle services, they should be required to play by the rules for both simultaneously.
Example: If you are providing telephone service, which you must unbundle for competitors, and you decide to offer Internet service over the same platform, then combined regulations should require that you provide unbundled access to competitors wishing to provide Internet service as well.
If cable companies have a monopoly over their network by regulation, and there is no defined rules for Internet service, then there is no combination of rules to require that it be open.
If we want Cable providers to offer a choice, we should seek an FCC/Congress definition of Internet service that is akin to Long Distance Telephone service. With such a definition, people who own the wire into your house would have to give you a choice of providers and be required to allow interconnection.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.