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.
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.
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.
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.
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.--
Thereby proving, yet again, that our government's regulatory and judicial agencies are, in their current form, unable to resist influence by sufficiently large, wealthy, and "powerful" companies which they are supposed to police.
Oh, you can make all kinds of arguments about how competition on these kinds of networks doesn't really make sense, but these are primarily engineering arguments. Yet the best decision seems to be to allow competition, because the overwhelming, extremely repetitive evidence is that allowing too much vertical integration in infrastructure industries like telecom results in abominable prices and worse service.
Or perhaps somebody actually believes this semantic hair-splitting nonsense about about cable being an "information" carrier rather than a "telephony" carrier?
We're on the road to Tycho.
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.
Hmmm. Between the recent law that will efectively allow Baby Bells to kill off their DSL competition and this decision that shuts competition off from cable networks, I see the great convergence for broadband will be coming sooner rather than later.
Traditionally cable companies provided an optional service - cable TV (not really as critical as the phone). I have to wonder when cable companies will be forced (again) to open up their broadband networks to competition since their technology isn't substantially different to the enduser than DSL is (although usually much faster). If or when that happens, here's hoping that the prices actually go down - so far massive telecom deregulation has had the market effect of raising prices. Gotta love paying $27 a month for basic telephone service with touchtone...
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
The primary purpose of cable lines was information delivery, before we started using them to carry internet traffic.
The very networking functionality being "regulated" here puts the lie to your assertion. Delivery is no longer the only significant purpose of cable, and it's not in any way the purpose of cable broadband.
We're on the road to Tycho.
You can't lose customers if there's no one to switch to. Since the FCC regulates regional cable monopolies, that only leaves the phone company, which may or may not offer comparable service.
We're on the road to Tycho.
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.
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.
Warner is the ONLY company mentioned in this post that CONTINUES to be regulated.
So, I am missing how your pointing to them in your subject line has anything to do with your first statement:
Thereby proving, yet again, that our government's regulatory and judicial agencies are, in their current form, unable to resist influence by sufficiently large, wealthy, and "powerful" companies which they are supposed to police.
Perhaps if you can revise your statement and use a company that has actually been able to buy influence (sorry, don't try Enron, all of their influence was with a prior administration, the current beurocrats ignored them and ignored the beurocrats they replaced last year) your post might read a little better.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
...except inconsistencies, found between the lines of legal documents. They are the ONLY thing that matters in today's Business world - and since money is the only thing that talks these days - the only things that matter period.
great.
-... ---
Oh, you can make all kinds of arguments about how competition on these kinds of networks doesn't really make sense, but these are primarily engineering arguments.
And they are misapplied arguments to boot. Comeptition with respect to roads and highways doesn't make much sense either, unless you want to pave the planet and have ten streets servicing your driveway.
The solution is simple. Make the road a public commons, accessible to all under the same terms and paid for as a public works, and allow competition to flourish where it does make sense: with car companies, shipping companies, taxicab companies, bicycles, etc.
Substitute "cable," or "fibre" for road and "ISP," "Telco," and "Cable Providor" for car companies, shipping companies, etc. and you get the idea.
The only way we are NOT going to have monopolies is by nationalizing the infrastructure and allowing business to compete for our patronage using the common, public wire on an equal basis.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
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.
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
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!!"
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
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?
When FCC head Michael Parker was just a mere commissioner he was the only FCC commissioner who voted for the AOL/Time Warner merger to go through without any stipulations whatsoever. And considering his father Colin Powell (yes, the Colin Powell) served on the AOL board of directors at the time that shouldn't surprise you either.
Thanks, Michael. Now AOL/Time Warner can continue on with their complete ownership of the fastest home-based broadband Internet service available.
you didnt vote for bush, that makes no difference, the AMERICAN system for presidency always has been electorial vote. thats how it works, more electors voted for Bush than Gore.
i personally dont like the electorial system, never have. but thats how it was at the time of the 2000 election. it should have been changed a hundred years or more ago. it should have been changed in 1999, but it wasnt. it should be changed and i hope it will.
interesting sideline. under bushs plan for vote counting, he would win by roughly 500 votes, under gores plan, bush would still win, but by 1000+ votes.
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.
The telephone network in the US, at least, was built using private investment, predominantly by AT&T. The bulk of the increadibly expensive bit though was done 50-100 years ago, whereas the CATV lines are 20-30 years old.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
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.
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.
It's not funny, this is serious! I demand you mod this down immediately!!! It's not funny!!!
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Cable and DSL are technologies that are both dead and very much alive, depending on how you look at them. They're alive in the sense that there's no faster way for a home user to get an Internet connection (aside from business-priced lines, i.e. T3s and optical), but dead in the sense that there's far faster technologies available, like Ethernet, that work just as well for the last mile. The problem is, there is no Ethernet last mile.
So, towns, counties, and/or states should start investing in last-mile Ethernet, and let the ISPs provide service over the lines. That way, everyone can choose between any of the ISPs in America, instead of only choosing between their monopoly telco and monopoly cable company. I'd certainly pay $50 a month for municipal Ethernet, especially considering ATTBI just raised my rate to $45.95.
fobbman Thanks, Michael. Now AOL/Time Warner can continue on with their complete ownership of the fastest home-based broadband Internet service available.
Perhaps his reply should sound like this...
Michael: "You are very welcome Mr. fobbman! Did you read the article at the top of the page at all? AOL-Time Warner will continue to provide competitive access becuase it was a condition of their merger, ordered by the government, just as it says above. Thus subjecting AOL to continued regulation just like a telco!"
Michael: "Oh! By the way, my name is Michael POWELL *not* Parker."
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Can they require allowing other ISPs access to lines as part of a contract allowing a cable company franchise rights, or would FCC rules supercede that clause?
I think the solution is to divest both the phone and cable companies of their wires, and divide them into carriers and service providers. If the company that owns and maintains the wires has no interest in the services being delivered, they are in no position to discriminate against any comers because they're all paying the same rate anyway.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Algore lost. Dubya won. Deal with it.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I haven't seen anyone else mention this yet so I'll raise the question:
I live in Illinois and have SBC/Ameritech as my phone company. When I moved a couple miles north (still in the same county), they could get my phone service fixed for a month. As soon as they did, I switched over to AT&T Digital for my phones. My phones now un through the cable.
So how is this going to affect my phones?
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
but wouldn't it be better to have to large corporations copeting for your dollars?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
changed to what?
If its straight popular vote, only about 15 states will every hear from any federal poitical candidate.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Information Service" implies a one-to-many system. The true value of the Internet is not in making it into TV. The cable folks have a weird belief that the Internet's only value lies there- they've spent millions convincing themselves that nothing is changing, and now they figure they may as well refigure the world to match their lack of vision.
People connecting to other people is the true value of the Internet. It is an enabler for communication and commerce, not a videofeed.
As such, the phone and the Internet are merely iterations of the same thing. Why this logic was ignored is obvious:
The FCC is owned. Guess by whom?
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I want to browse at -1, I just don't want to have to spead the picture out over 87 monitors in order to do it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
But they aren't competing. In my neighborhood the company with a monopoly on cable TV (Time-Warner) offers a choice-Roadrunner or AOL, both owned by Time-Warner. My experience with them as a cable TV provider has me convinced that they are my last choice as ISP, right behind tin cans and string. In order to stay with my current ISP (and my current e-mail addresses), I have to stay with dial-up. Sprint has been saying "real soon now" about DSL for about 3 years now, and I suspect they're waiting until they can offer it only for ISPs that they own. The only competition going on is between these giant corporations to see how big a monopoly each can become and how fast they can do it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
Editorial control from my ISP? I think not. Your view, and that at the moronic Federal and State levels, only make sense if your ISP is really an entertianment company pushing crap down your throat. That's not what the internet is for, and it is outrageous that the public right of way is being given to people who think differently.
Get this! I'm not paying an ISP for yet another way to get Hollywood garbage. I'm paying my ISP for communications services. That my ISP would exercise "editorial" control by keeping me from serving, and that my ISP is a monopoly carrier is OBVIOULY against the public interest. My internet connection is worth more to me than my phone, my tv and all my magazine subscriptions as it has taken their place. My desire to contribute to the public domain is shared by countless others, who get it. Blocking our contributions will destroy the web as a forum of information creation and make it worthless, much like the poorly regulated Cable TV, and broadcast media.
Now go tell your friends what I said so I don't have to kick their ass.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Read a physics book.
The bandwidth in the open air is limited. Period. If someone is on the same frequency at the same time, you can't operate. You also cannot "split" that specific frequency. There are also issues like multipath, harmonics, and natural interference.
ANY SEALED CONDUCTOR MATERIAL CAN ACT LIKE A WHOLE NEW COMPLETE SKY BANDWIDTH, ADDING ANOTHER THOUSAND THAT CAN'T FIT IN THE SKY. Ta--DA!
SAY YOU CAN ONLY HAVE 1000 people "in the sky" at a time.
> Nearly all cable TV providers operate under municipally-granted monopolies
Flat-out wrong. Exclusive (monopoly) cable franchises were banned, federally, in 1992; before that, franchises were often nonexclusive anyway. Many cities granted multiple franchises. Each operator started building at one spot and continued until it met the next operator's system, and stopped. Simple economics dictate that you're better off investing to be the first cable company someplace than the second.
Cablecos are monopolies in most places because nobody in their right mind wants to be the second one. You have the same cost (to build cable past houses) and a lower market share (zero to begin with), which means a higher unit cost, and lower margins. RCN is an "overbuilder". Look at their financials.
Telephone companies on the other hand had state exclusives up until federal law changed in 1996. A few states allowed local telephone competition just before that, but the terms were usually ornery. Telephone companies also benefit from "universal service" programs (taxes).
You know, I don't actually disagree with you (except for the part where you equate me with a moron). If I did, I wouldn't have spent several years as a public-access station's representative to the state association, much less served on that Association's board. But right now, what you're advocating ain't the way it is. If your Internet connection means as much to you as you say it does, I strongly suggest you harness your rhetorical energies and direct them someplace they might do some good, like your state PUC (see if they have an ombudsman that might listen), or your state Representative or your Congressman. Because right now, there is no actual free Internet, and there hasn't been one for years. And bitching at me won't do one bit of good to change that, 'cause I'm just some shithead on Slashdot.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.