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."
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.
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.
Completely!
A data service is one that gave enough campaign donations to the Bush campaign. A telecommunications service is one that didn't. ;-)
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
Does having more competition or less competition help you get what you want? If you have only one seller, is that seller more or less likely to care about your needs?
Cable companies have enjoyed government protection for years. They are at a level they would not be at had the government not interfered. Funny though, its ok to take a government handout, but not ok to accept that there may be consequences to that handout?
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.
"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.
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.