Slashdot Mirror
9th Circuit Overturns FCC's Cable Modem Decision
rednaxela writes "The 9th Circuit today issued a decision overturning the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an 'information service,' stating instead that cable modem service consists of both an 'information service' *and* a 'telecommunications service.' Telecommunications services are classified under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and are subject to all kinds of regulation. Information Services are classified under Title I, and are largely free from regulation. If upheld, this decision will likely require cable modem providers to open their networks to competing ISPs. Further, this is likely to derail, or at least complicate, the FCC's plans to classify DSL service (which is provided primarily over incumbent telco facilities) as a unified 'information service." Bottom line - the 9th Circuit's decision may well have preserved open access for competing ISPs on all forms of wireline networks.' Here is the 9th Circuit's ruling (PDF).
I'd like some cable modem competition here.
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
Dont' worry, the current Vegas Odds on the 9th Circuit Court being over turned are 21:1, based on past history alone.
I hate that Shaw is such a monopoly in my particular region. In cities, they compete with Telus - but frankly, Telus is the greater of the two evils. That's another topic for another day, however.
Out here in Ruralland Canada, Shaw Cable is the only choice for highspeed, and they charge an arm and a leg AND make you sign over your firstborn. It's very annoying. I'd like to see them put in charge of the infrastructure alone, and have mom & pop ISPs handle the cable modems, and the end-user support. They should only have to pay a small per-client licensing fee, and be given free reign to charge what they'd like above that for internet access. They should also have the option of regulating speeds at their own discretion, for various bundle offerings.
Does anyone think this is a good way to break up monopoly power, or is it just silly?
If the 9th circuit were not a bunch of crackpots that overturn all kinds of stuff just for kicks, I'd take this seriously. However this being the 9th circuit, it will most likely be overturned again on appeal
Let's say that there does come pressure for cable companies to lease their lines out to third parties. What about protections to keep those third parties from being charged exorbitant rates for their leased lines?
Holy cow! I thought this guy was evil incarnate. So now, it looks like he's evil incarnate, who's trying to make himself look good.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
*As much as I dislike [Cable Company], I prefer not to talk bad about them in a public forum such as /.
As of 10/06/03, I hate COBOL developers.
maybe now the most-technologically-advanced United States will catch up with third-world South Korea in broadband!!
People are complaining about ISPs not doing enough about the spam problem, and yet people also complain about how on-line privacy is being erroded..
Now, someone please explain to me how these two "goals" (less spam and more privacy) can co-exist with each other. I just really don't get it.
Wil this force cable modem users to authenticate through PPPOE?
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
This is bad for those that lack access to high-speed cable Internet, perhaps because they don't live in highly metropolitan areas. As it becomes more likely that a cable company will have to share its infrastructure, the cable company becomes more likely to drag its heels. For example, Verizon held back the deveopment of DSL in the northeast because they were forced to share their network.
Any thoughts?
Why not open a company that taunts "free P2P sans RIAA risk!", and just lock the P2P to the network only, thus preventing anyone outside from identifying you or snagging your stuff?
If enough privacy could be designed for such a system, I have a feeling people would flock in droves to it. The only problem is the obvious lawsuit that the RIAA would hit you with.
My opinion is that you could win the case based on the internet's ability to remain private, and if the ISP got a radio broadcasting licence, in which case they could effectively bypass any copyright nonsense.
Regulation != Choice
-------
Just leaving some blood in the water.
It was my understanding that the phone companies had to open their lines up because their infrastructure was in part funded by the government. And a lot of the initial capitol to build a reliable phone system was provided by the taxpayers.
I thought the cable companies totally funded the construction (or purchase of pre-existing) system, and had no government assistance financially or otherwise? If this is the case is it fair to force a private company to allow competitors to use the fruits of their labor?
I picture a similar case being United Parcel Services being forced to share it's truck fleet with the competition, just because no one else can afford to buy their own trucks.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Look to get taxed and fee'd to death if this ruling stands, just like your land line and your cell phone. With the "telecommunication service" distinction comes a WHOLE lotta baggage.
The 9th circut court is a circus. And while this may be the right descion the 9th circus court often makes the right descion for the wrong reason, weather it be politicly motivated or otherwise, leading to appeals further up the chain of command. plus, don't think that the cable companies will give up the cash cow that easily.
What's the deal man ? Are you with the people or
.
against them ?
This is kick ass ruling !
Look at this idea.
New Isp's offering high speed broadband using Wi-Fi at frequencies the cable companies never use.
And they would never have used them anyways because of their Michael Powell protected monopoly.
How much has the Bush administration been Bribed, I mean campaign financed ?
I am guessing our friend at TimeWarner/Cox/another cable company have given
a nice sum
Michael ! give up the look of being independent and acting as though you want whats right for the average consumer. You have messed things up and set broadband back years .
You can't even find a decent ISP anymore. You hear people talking about how this and that company is a monopoly, customer service sucks, they don't deal with spam properly, service inconsistent, etc. Why is that? What the hell is going on!? Why can't there just be a high-speed ISP that does what it's supposed to do? Is it that they just don't give a crap or what? Remember back when Microsoft said that high speed internet was going to take a couple of years longer to come to the mainstream then anticipated? I think there's something fucked up going on. Fuck high-speed internet, fuck technology... fuck computers. The whole industry makes me sick to my bloody stomach.
I'm not anti-microsoft. I'm anti-bullshit. Which means I'm anti-microsoft.
Where I live, my cable modem and cable TV are both provided by Cablevision / Optimum Online. My combined bill to these guys for one modem and no premium channels, and their shiny new digital channel box, is over a hundred bucks a month. This is with the "discount" I get for having a cable modem and a cable box both in the same household, and it's done nothing but go up since I moved here.
Some of the money is probably being diverted into building new infrastructure. They've moved all the analog cable TV to a digital system, but the channel guide they provide is so clumsy and awkward that I wound up never using it, and I just break out the dead trees channel guide instead when I do watch TV (which isn't often). I'm guessing they're trying to get money to upgrade everything to allow Hi-Def signals in the future, but right now I feel like I'm paying for nothing, and the only reason they get away with this is because there's essentially no competition in the area.
As far as data goes, I could go with DSL, but after my horrid experiences with the mishmash of competing infrastructures that we laughingly call DSL here, I decided it was better to pay for the devil I did know.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
I'm beginning to think that Fight Club had it right.
Topple the credit companies, and society must start anew.
If we can keep this ruling intact, I hope that this helps lower the $50 a month cost that I pay for my cable modem! I've been forced to use one company for years now, without the option of DSL in my area. What's worse, if I ever wanted to go to dish for my television service (I want Discovery HD) then I had to pay and extra $20 fee for simply not having cable service.
FWIW, I pay $130 to my cable provider each month. That's $40 more than my monthly power bill. It's that odd?
The 9th Circuit Court is one of many 2nd highest courts in the land. Their rulings are only law in the.... 9th Circuit! Your statement that legislating is to make law = redundant, it might have been more meaniningful to say that, in this case adjudicating effectively makes law.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
so far, even when another isp 'shares' the cable infrastructure, they aren't supplying the network access ... all they get to do is host (mail, news, webspace), supply branded software & support (os & apps, otherwise power-cycle & transfer network/hardware issues) & pay the cable co. ... i do software support in this situation, so i have mixed interests ... but in the larger view this is just another kludge as we wait for real open networking competition & service (shouldn't be that much service involved if done well) ... my 4/25 bit
There was an article in 'IEEE Spectrum' this month taking about some technology improvements that would allow broadband to the house at around 20Mbps.
One of the drivers they mentioned for this was this FCC regulation limiting access to their infrastructure.
I'm not sure how this would encourage the MSOs to upgrade their hardware, unless the CMTSs they're using don't support MISP. It's not like each ISP would need their own head end -- they'd just get a feed from the cable company like all their competitors. All the ISPs would suffer together, unless, perhaps, the MSO provided "premium" service for ISPs that were willing to pay more.
Seriously. The telcos and cable companies shouldn't have to share their hardware. However, local governments need to make it as easy as possible for competitors to get approval to build new networks. Fiber-to-the-home, anyone? HDTV over IP multicast? The "monopolies" are vulnerable if anyone wants to give it a shot.
If the "monopolies" started doing dumb things like blocking Internet traffic between their subscribers and Mom & Pop Internet Co., then you'd have a case for regulation, assuming the free market didn't smack them for such foolishness first. But making companies share their plant to the point that the "competitor" is just a marketeer slapping their name on the same service is silly. Powell is right.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't it seem odd that we're all expecting the cable companies to allow competition on a physical network that they built and own? If someone wants to compete with them, let them build their own network. Am I completely off base?
$45 per U Colocation Special
I have googled and can't find info on ownership rights for cable coaxial lines.
I thought the public owned the copper lines.
Anyone know anything about this ? Links ?
This type of case exemplifies the problem you have when you let a govt. grant a monopoly. Once a govt. grants company a the exclusive right to lay down a physical network (cable, phone, power, etc.), that company is a de facto monopoly. Here's how the game works. Govt. grants exclusive rights initially to the company paying for the netwrok to encourage investment in the network with a guaranteed monopoly. Once the network is working well, the monopoly right is taken away, and other comapnies are allowed to use the network at or below cost. This has the immediate effect of screwing the company that owns the network by changing the rules on a whim in the middle of the game. The secondary effect is that incentive to improve the network has been significantly diminished since money invested won't get a return since it benefits your competitors at your expense. Also extending the network to areas outside the current reach is unlikely for the same reason. The only good solution is to allow two or more companies lay redundant networks. The real competition between AT@T, Sprint, Verizon, etc. has vastly improved long distance and lowered the rates. The artificial competition in local phone markets has not reduced cost or improved service substantially, however. Don't expect there to be any improvement in cable service due to this artificial competition.
Vote for Pedro
The cable lines are leased to the Cable Companies by the City governments Councils.
Is this correct?
This Michael Powell is an idiot because he guaranteed the monopolies time free of competiton so they could ' upgrade their systems '.
Now , do you really trust your cable company to do favors for you ?
Bit of the article -
The FCC voted in March 2002 to exempt cable companies from laws that force phone companies to open their lines to competition. At the time, officials said the move was necessary to spur more investment in high-speed Internet services.
These were the clowns who wanted to take the reference to God out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
I find it amusing how people tend to forget about the clowns that put the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegience.
You speak as if it was always in there, but it was not.
This whole thing reminds me of what the phone companies said to the public about those charges they put on your phone bill you can never understand.
Most of the charges were for quote ' upgrading ' the network and it never materialized.
I don't have the link but many consumer rights organizations know of this.
Seems like the cable companies stole this little scam right from the phone companies books and fooled the gullible Michael Powell.
I have to say that I am very happy with my cable companys high speed access they do spam filtering and bandwidth is not a problem
i have comcast cable myself couse thats all my city offers and they charge a arm and a leg 59.99. back when it was @home network it was 39.99 so we relly need some competion in this area to brng prices down and porvide better service. well thers dsl but its mucth slower then cable so they relly cant compeat. not to metion comcast has no regard for privcy and happly submit to the riaa. not that i use kazza but i fell for those comcast users that have no clue thy will happly let the riaa sue you.
maybe now the most-technologically-advanced United States will catch up with third-world South Korea in broadband!!
South Korea has a much easier time rolling out broadband than the US.
In particular, something like 90% of the population lives in large apartment buildings in dense cities. LARGE apartment buildings. SO large that they each have a small telephone exchange in the basement.
Wiring all those apartments for broadband is a snap. For instance you can put a router in the basement, hook it into the SONET ring, and feed the phone lines with DSL. They're so short that getting 6 Mb to every apartment is a snap. (Or use two pair in the phone cable and send 'em Ethernet.)
In the US, on the other hand, you're dealing with a country that spans a continent from side to side and about a third of the way from top to bottom. Thousands of miles both ways. (It takes a week or so to drive across it.) On the average that takes a LOT of wire/cable/fiber to get everybody hooked up.
You'll notice that, like South Korea, the net (both narrow and broadband) is being rolled out mostly on existing copper: dialup, phone-pair DSL, and cable TV coax. (Exception is wireless, which also doesn't involve stringing something new to each house - just shine an antenna on it.)
But UNlike South Korea maybe half the population lives too far from the CO for even a 1.5 Mb downlink / puny uplink to work over phone pair.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
An outsider living in US and ( happily ) paying the low taxes here - but don't complain the taxes, it's up to the voters what taxes they want or don't. I have seen the same thing all over the world - you pay what you vote and you voted for taxes in telecomm. services.
Seeing as this is a discussion about the cable industry, I'm sure you could figure out some of the abbreviations from the context. Maybe I should have clarified MISP (the ability of a cable head end to handle multiple ISPs -- exactly the theme here) but you're really in trouble if you don't know the rest of them.
I got a call from a salesman trying to tell me that you can "eliminate your debt" through an interpretation of the laws. Apparently, banks are violating the law when they create your credit card account. By simply sending them a few letters, they will eliminate your account and not report you to the credit bureaus, because if they fought you then they'd be admitting to breaking the law and would have a class action suit against them.
I'm seriously considering this, but it's very expensive ($3,000 for the first $40k of debt and $1,000 for each additional $30k of debt).
It's interesting that lately I've seen a lot of references to Fight Club (both the movie and the book). Does anyone know if this "debt elimination" has any merit to it? My attorney and accountant don't think so but the salesman asked me to have them call him and he'd explain it. If he can convince them, then he's convinced me -- but I doubt they'll be convinced. Something like this, if true, should have hit the headlines.
I tried asking this question to Ask Slashdot (I'm sure many of us are ex-dot-commers who have a ton of debt they'd love to eliminate), but it got rejected. No hard feelings, but it's too bad readers can't mod the queue...
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
My ISP, Mediacom, can stick its head between its legs and kiss its ass goodbye. I don't think i've ever paid $50 a month for such a crappy service before, but you can be damned sure that i'll switch as soon as humanly possible.
I regularly report MSN spam to the Hotmail admins.
Michael Powell supports media consolidation redardless of the side effects(mostly negative for the consumer). In this example, Fox is squeezing Cox(;0) by demanding cox pay a higher rate for Fox Sports. This means higher cable bills for consumers which in turn drive them into the waiting arms of Direct TV, also owned by Fox parent News Corp.
Espn was mentioned by the cable company here as the main cause of rate hikes.
,we might be able to get some rate reductions . Shame them to lower rates.
If all this were brought up in the media
Unless they add legislation limiting those fees, I do not see this as a good thing. No wonder cell phones have taken off after deregulation.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
People are complaining about ISPs not doing enough about the spam problem, and yet people also complain about how on-line privacy is being erroded..
Online privacy and spam are only relatyed in that when your online privacy is not protected, you will recieve more spam.
Now, someone please explain to me how these two "goals" (less spam and more privacy) can co-exist with each other. I just really don't get it.
Most of the practical methods of reducing spam are not going to effect privacy negatively at all. Dropping mails from misconfigured mailhosts, open proxies/relays, and from confirmed spam sending ipaddresses will greatly reduce the flow, and not effect your privacy one bit. Add to those checking both the "Reply to:" and the "From:" addresses for validity and you've just cut out a (small) additional portion of canned, spiced meat product. Next apply a beyesian filter (allowing users to submit examples) to the rest, and you've just reduced the amount of spam sent to an amount that most users can handle on thier own.
Basic privacy policy adherance will reduce spam by not allowing the companies to distribute your personal info (including email addresses) outside thier own corporate "walls" and into the hands of the mass marketers.
Large (and small) companies are notorious for selling your info. I have always felt that it is somewhat unfair to us citizens that we do not enjoy the protection of the 1974 Privacy Act when dealing with the credit bureaus, banks, phone companies, supermarkets and othe corporations that track our purchases, reading habits, medical needs, movie preferences, travel/hotel reservations, and internet habits, link them to our name, age, account number and social security number, then sell this info to the highest bidder. Perhaps the Privacy Act should apply to private transactions as well.
Read, L
The Ninth Circuit Court today overruled the FCC's designation of the cable broadband as an information service and rightly classified it as a communication service.
The cable industries foray into the internet has made them capable of providing Voice over IP, fax over IP and every other service that a regulated communication's company provides. Exempting the cable internet service providers from the same regulation as traditional telecommunications providers is bad for competition and bad for consumers.
The FCC decided against the public in it's media consolidation rules and has been overruled by the voice of the people and the U.S. Congress. Consumer rights groups and informed consumers are equally upset over the FCC's decision to support the cable industries' monopoly over the promotion of consumer choice and improved competition.
I urge the FCC, and Mr. Powel in particular to drop this case now. An appeal will only result in the further expenditure of taxpayers' money to fight a cause that the Ninth Circuit just won for them. An appeal will only only result in another consumer backlash casting an even darker shadow over the FCC regarding who it truly represents, industry or citizens.
It look as though the 9th circuit finally did something right...
Xaotik Designs
Read your Constitution again and find the article that describes the Supreme Court's ability to veto laws.
Look at the linchpin clause, which states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. When paper laws conflict, who is supposed to sort it out other than a judge?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The problem here is that a for-profit entity was granted a monopoly (and usually given special government levys and sometimes even public bonds for funding) instead of setting it up as a non-profit "governmental" entity giving public ownership. This sort of stuff happens with the falacy that just because something is commerially owned that it will be competitive. Corporations in a non-competitive market are usually slower, less attentive, and more costly than government due to profit maximization... at least with government you can kick the ring leader out of office every few years.
On the flip side, government has no business being in a field where their could be competition. And thus even though a non-profit "governmental" organization may own the resource, this does not mean that everything should be done by the non-profit's employees. Within a monpoply are many potential competitive marketplaces, opportunities for capitalism to thrive -- laying the wire, maintaining the wires, content providers, maintainers of wires, etc. Thus, just beacuse a non-profit ("governmental") entity may own the resource does not mean that it should try to do everything internally. The distinction is actually quite clear; for a power company, the non-profit should own the transmission wires, while the power plans themselves can be for-profit (properly charged for polution they create to keep the playing field level).
Unfortunate when it gets all messed up like this, and then regulation is used like a bandaid to fix a more fundamental resource ownship problem. The overall goal is to maximize competition and thus efficiency; phone, energy, and cable companies rarely do this on their own -- the 9th circut is just doing its best to "encourage" a monopoly to be at least somewhat competitive. Ick. The courts would be better off forcing a sale of the "necessary public" aspects of the company to a non-profit and then having the maintanence of these resources open to public bidding. While this would be very painful up front... it would correct the core issue.
the 9th circuit court overturned something bad.
maybe they finally got common sense...
nah.
if this makes it to the Supreme Court the odds are that it will be overturned.
This is typical of Disney, which owns 80 percent of ESPN.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I whole heartely agree. The government should never grant monopolies. It should build all monopolies itself and contract out as much of the work as possible to a competitive marketplace. This sort of "bandaid" competition is the worst possible case.
As for letting two companies lay redundant networks... well, this is just silly in most cases. It costs lots of money to lay and maintain wire, and this is usually only cost effective with a large number of users. The solution is to let a non-profit own the wires, and let companies contract its usage. Keep as much as possible in the competitive domain, while making sure that the "core monopoly" is a non-profit entity with local representation.
n/t
A little competition couldn't hurt. In almost all cases competition helps the consumer (ME). Even if prices don't fall and quality doesn't exactly improve (believe me, there's room) it could provide for some more options.
-Tim Louden
Yeah. I really have no sympathy for companies that want to enter the telecommunications sector who aren't willing to pony up the cash to build their own infrastructure. People like to make it look like these cable and telephone companies have absolute monopolies over the last mile, when in reality, all it really takes to increase competition is for someone to make their OWN investment and build out their own network.
With laws that make all last mile infrastructure public domain, it's hard to see how anyone would want to build any new networks these days.
Let's get passed this nonsensical regulation. If you want to compete with the local telco or cable provider, install your own wires!
The only real issues are the public right of way laws. I really don't see how the fact that the telephone company runs its wires over public land is sufficient justification for making them share it, tho. If the public should be compensated for the telco's telephone poles and underground conduits, let it be in the form of a reasonable public land use fee, or permit process.
That being said, time to get back to homework. I apologize for not having enough time to write something more eloquent or persuasive, but I thought this short rambling would convey the general idea.
Consumer reports spams. Badly. Take this survey. Take that survey. (No, opting-out did not work.) When my subscription (to the online site) came up for renewal, I cancelled. So *NOW* I get spammed to come back.
:)
Competition is great, but since I run my own server, I'll just block the CR junk at the firewall, thanks
What is up with this guy? He is anti-consumer in every possible way it seems. Hopefully congress will give him another legislative smackdown like they did with the radio ownership rules.
As Chris Murry [...] notes, 'Many consumers hate their cable companies'
Yes, yes we do.
Oh... there was more to that quote?
They're just refusing to force existing cable providers to open up their lines. They're not stopping anyone from laying thier own cable to compete.
And, who says cable competition is necessary? End users do not subscribe to cable - they subscribe to internet service, which they can also get by satelite, DSL, modem, cell phone, leased line, etc. Or they subscribe to TV, which they can also get by satelite, broadcast, DVD rental, etc.
Just because products are not the same does not mean that competition doesn't exist.
paintball
eom.
Oh, look!
The 9th circuit has overturned another lower court ruling. WHY IS THIS NEWS???
The 3 judge panels of the 9th circuit overturn just about everything that makes it to that court. It seems that these actions are held up about as often as they are overturned by the next higher court (or the full sitting of the 9th circuit).
Seriously, I think the 9th circuit would overturn a ruling that stated simply "Water is wet."
Personally I think the cable companies should have control over their private wiring. If any other company wants to complete, let them run their own damned cable.
If I want to sell a product, should I be able to force Target to carry it in the name of commerce or competition? Why should it be any different for communications lines.
My opinion has one caveat: The cable company's lines in question must be truly private; no public money must have been spent (loaned, okay) to install the infrastructure.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You have a point. But how easily do you overcome the inertia of the current setup to dismantle the monopoly and create a properly competitive market?
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
You know, if this trend continues, US citizens might even have (shudder!) freedom again. And companies might actually have to have good service to keep customers interested.
As it stands, we are all rationed cableTV/modem access the way Russians were rationed vodka and food.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Don't know if its the same in the US as the UK but here, if you are a line provider of some sort then you are not liable for what is carried on your lines ( c.f. the post office is not liable for whats in the mail) . However if you provide an 'Information Service' you are. So I hope the decision is upheld on appeal, otherwise the RIAA will have a new BIG target to go after in its attempt to castrate the internet.
You missed the other half; this is obviously an attempt to shut down or regulate the nascent VoIP market. The big phone companies don't want to slash their margins and have to compete with Vonage and the 10-10 numbers on price and value, so they'll do it in the courtroom.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
...our great monopoly "Telekomunikacja Polska" has installed special dampeners on its leased phone lines, so voice calls pass through unchanged but you won't get more than 24kbps on modems. I don't see why cable providers wouldn't (technically) add some devices that will pass the "telecommunication service" data while leaving "information service" locked out.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Regardless of what the outcome of the court is, all cable companies are required to get the permission of the localities in order to operate. Such permission is called a franchise. Franchises are the reason why we have public access channels--the localities demanded it as a condition of receiving a franchise.
So where I am going with this is this: The localities could easily decide, when the franchises come up for renewal, to make it a condition of the renewal that at least n ISP's be allowed to use the cable system to connect to the customers. For that matter, the franchise agreement could even name ISP's, with a stipulation that the cable provider not try to buy them out.
Just my $.02 worth....
www.wavefront-av.com
My thoughts exactly. Which is why I'm asking questions rather than wasting the money immediately. "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I got a call from a salesman trying to tell me that you can "eliminate your debt" through an interpretation of the laws.
The problem stems from the fact that no US court actually shares this interpretation. This seems similar to the claims that various defects during ratification make collecting an income tax is illegal. While people would love to believe there's a "secret" way to avoid paying taxes, the IRS does not agree. If you have credit card debt pay your damn bills.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
The cable company is granted a "franchise" in most cities. This is, in simple terms, a monopoly. They are protected from competition. Lately, they've had to compete with satellite, but cable companies do have advantages (apartment buildings, high-rise condos, etc don't allow dishes).
As a result of this competition, the individual consumer has very little "say". There's no opportunity for anyone else to improve on the product.
Opening up the "local loop" allows competition. It doesn't necessarily promote the original owner to upgrade or enhance the system. They can drag their heels, saying, "If we upgrade, we don't see all of the possible revenue."
So, there are 2 evils: Government regulation, or de-regulation and living in a free market. Both have their downfalls. Everyone wants something in between.
-- No sig for you!
The GDP figures are in Purchaseing Power parity. That is the reason China is 2nd and India 4th in the list. Obvioulsy, not a measure of industrial development.
Korea is a member of OECD since 12 December 1996 ... and is considered an industrially developed country.
BTW, "third world" is a derogatory term. The politically correct term is developing country or if you like poor country. Don't use the term if when you talk with someone from these countries or visit one.
karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
I said "cert. denied" implies that the lower court got it right. In terms of the precedential value of a case, it would go like this:
1. Supreme Ct. decision
2. Circuit court, cert. denied
3. Circuit court decision (not appealed).
There is value in a cert. denied case because the SC looked at it and decided it wasn't worth their time to get into it. While this is not as valuable as an actual affirmance, it does carry some value.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
But the existing company invested the huge dollar amount to build the network, so why shouldn't they benefit from their investment?
And your road analogy is also flawed, because the government owns the roads, not the contractors who build them - and the government certainly does mandate what you can and cannot drive on the roads they own.
paintball
Here, all DSL ISP's(and there are a lot)are really reselling ma Bell's DSL lines. Bell is forced to sell at cost the line to ISP's and they resell it to people.
;-) Open up the cable copper to competition, and watch prices go down and service levels up!
The point is that the resellers are eating Bell alive because they have better packaging. Example: sometime a year and a half ago, Bell decided to hard-cap their DSL service. Of course, the tech-savvy people jumped fast to get an ISP without caps. Some of them had trouble keeping up with the new subscriptions, and Bell was shedding market share like a tree in autumn. A month or two ago, Bell removed the caps. Yay competition!
Morale: competition is a good thing. No caps is also a sweet thing
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
Why shouldn't infrastructure companies make money? They made the investment; they should get the returns.
The cable companies could still negotiate with the content providers for discounts and bundle everything and act as a clearing house for subcriptions. Unless they decide they do not want to carry the WB or that amature station. Then the "subscribers" could buy the programs directly from the producers. Most people would prefer to have a single bill for most of their television channels, and the discount for bundling the usual channels would be a considerable savings. But this way the subscribers have choices.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
If I had a TV, I would want to tell my television to get the current streamed content from:
i n the near future.
tv://hbo1.hbo.com
The television has my logon, and uses it to access the content. HBO gets my IPAddress and logon, and can be certain that I am only receiving the content at one location at a time. They could track exactly what I watch, but that is a different issue. I could pay HBO by the hour, or a monthly fee.
The cable, telephone, and ISP companies should not be involved in the transaction. Why should these infrastructure companies have anything to do with my content?
Because they own the wires? I do not want a monopoly to have any control over my content. Yes, they made the investment. Yes, they should make their money back, charge maintenance costs, and profit for as long as wires are still useful. But let me see what I want to see, not what they decide to show.
I am using HBO as my example because they have shows that I would watch, if I could get just those shows. HBO could charge up to $1/hour or $20 per month, and let the first episode of each new series be free. I saw "The Sopranos" and "Six Feet Under" a few years ago. I would pay $8 per month to receive those 2 shows for a few months of each year (if I could watch them when I want. I still would not plan to be home at a certain time just for entertainment.) But I will not pay for tons of content that I do not want tempting me.
If this happened, there would probably be
tv://sopranos.hbo.com/season3/episode5.show
I doubt anybody in the industry wants this to happen. New shows would be much more difficult to push. And shows with loyal followings like ST:TOS would be harder to cancel when exact numbers of watchers is known, and revenue can be attributed directly to each watcher. Shows with limited audiences could survive by basing their production budget on the revenues. Amature production companies would have a chance.
The cable companies would still exist as both the infrastructure (probably killing the telcos) and financial centers for collecting subscriptions, but the public would have more control.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Thus this particular way to deliver the advantages of "competition" for some people comes at a cost to other people, and this cost is forcibly extracted - theft by another name. Much better to respect property rights and rely on the _only_ proven mechanism for bringing customers what they want - an unfettered free market.