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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.