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."
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
The problem with technology and law is that we're dealing with new things. The government doesn't have specific rules for how to handle things, so it makes analogies to existing technologies. Those analogies are never perfect.
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.
From my perspective, I don't see as this is a bad ruling from a legal perspective.
I guess as someone who can run his own servers (and does so) off a cable modem, I can't see why I would want to use ATTBI or Earthlink or AOL over my cable line. We've already seen what happens to DSL when Verizon points at Covad who points back at Verizon. There's the slight possibility that Earthlink (for example) might have a nicer TOS than ATTBI, but I doubt it.
All *I* want from a provider is the following:
Pipe (fast is preferable)
If it's broke, go fix it.
Don't bother me with anything else. I don't want your news feeds, I don't want your portal site, I don't want your e-mail offers, I don't want your e-mail server.
So far, ATTBI is doing most of that. I have to prod them a few times if something gets real strange, but otherwise I've been very satisfied with the service I've received over the past 4 years.
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. Since, I don't think my response will be unique, I doubt that sort of policy will last for the cable company.
However, I don't think this will cause a rapid rollout of IP over cable just a raising of the rates charged to customers.
Cable is a dead tech anyways ready to be thrown on the trash heap with ISDN. I am sure the future of communications for the home user will be wireless. Just look at the telephone. There are now more cell phones than POTS phones in the US.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
It seems the editorial position here is that cable companies should be forced to allow other ISPs access. I'm not sure that's the right way of doing it.
The real question is whether you define operating the cable network (the physical network) as a separate business from providing data over that network. With current cable systems, the business of providing content and the business of providing connections are one and the same. At some point, it might become practical to change that, much like some states have done with electricity. You would get a separate bill for having a live cable connected to your house from the bill for whatever television content you received, quite possibly from separate companies.
There are now more cell phones than POTS phones in the US.
Riiiiiiight. I believe you.
I am sure the future of communications for the home user will be wireless.
Yeah, once you figure out a scheme to keep information in the open air safe, secure, impossible to have multipath issues, clean signal strengths 100% of the time, and a way to cram fiber bandqwidth quality routing hubs over the EM spectrum WHICH BY ITS VERY NATURE IS LIMITED.
Good luck. I would suggest you smoke more drugs.
The biggest thing holding broadband back is local regulation. More than 90% of cable companies have their local monopoly because the local government has created it. So you want to start your own cable company? Good luck trying to get the city to sell you a franchise. Local governments don't like the competition because they get a cut of the money the local monopoly makes. Competition would mean less money for them.
Want to string up your own telephone lines? Sorry....you're not allowed to do that either. Hey they're just trying to "protect the public."
This is not a national issue. Its 1000's of local governments standing in the way.
one monor point I think people are missing.
now tell me if im wrong here..
If I rember corectly. The Telco backbone and infrastructure was payed for by the / government / i.e taxpayers.. and given to the telcos as a public trust..
and the cable companys, from what I understand [tell me if im wrong] built up there backbone on there own. Am I correct?
If this is true it make perfect sence why Telcos have to open thier lines while the Cable Co's dont.
That argument is valid, but only holds up in areas where there were not grants of monopoly by the local municipality. There are *lots* of cities in the U.S. where the incumbent cable company was protected from competition by the local government. Go to Virginia Beach, VA and look at the history of Cox Cable there if you'd like to see it in action.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
The town I live in has choice of three phone companies, two cable companies (both of which offer cable modems), and a variety of other ISPs which offer various forms of connection including DSL or dual ISDN.
Funny, but our rates are lower than surrounding communities. Imagine that.
When I called the major monopolistic cable company and had problems with their customer service, I just called their competition instead and got more channels for a lower price.
All of this happened because immediately after cable was deregulated, when the cable company's town monopoly contract came up for renewal, the town said "no, we're allowing competition now."
If you don't have competition in your town, blame your town. Call your local representatives and demand to know why you don't have choice. Nag them when the monopoly contracts for the utilities come up. Get your neighbors involved. You might be surprised.
I'm a RoadRunner customer and AOL/TimeWarner still has yet to open their network to someone other than RoadRunner.
IIRC, the deadline was one year from the merger, and I think it's been well over that. So, WTF?
After having my mom & pop ISP's bought out by slightly larger mom & pop's I switched to Qwest. Glad RoadRunner was available when Qwest decided to inflict MSN on their customers. I agree that cheaper and more reliable is better and that a large corporation seems poised to answer both of these concerns.
Not knowing enough about either phone wires or cable lines: is there a way this can be structured so that the lines are owned by municipalities and the service can be provided by a free market of providers? That way all providers are on truly equal footing.
As I see it now, it's ownership of the wires that's key. When "independent" companies are merely dependent on the larger wire-owning company for some of their basic services (like running a new line to a house, or switching locations), their service is always going to suffer in favor of the company that owns the wires. Even if the activities were all computer controlled and fairly instant there'd still be a delay while the "independent" provider relayed a request to the main provider.
I do not have a signature
There is at least one possible reason for this. Cable ISP's are competing with DSL based ISP's. It could be that the Government powers that be are beleiving that this competition will keep prices down. Its an intresting thing when you think about it. There arent many other things that come to mind where two radically different technologies are competing to provide essentially the same service.
The only other possibility that comes to mind is power generation (Coal vs Hydro vs Nuclear). And as far as I know, you usually only have one type of power plant providing power to a given area.
END COMMUNICATION
i think there's enough competition just based in the fact that cable will have to compete against DSL. for competition, you only need one other player.
just wait until ricochet gets back up and together. that'll make three.
and personally, i'd rather have unlimited 175kbps wireless @ only $44.95 per month wouldn't you?
furthermore - having several "providers" that share the same pipe really isn't competition. be realistic here.