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).
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?
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.
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.
Yes, competition is good, but does that also mean more taxes for cable modem service if it's classified as a telecommunications service?
They covered this in NPR; it's a myth that the 9th circuit gets a higher % overturned. It happens to be one of the busiest circuits (I think *the* busiest), so more cases go through and more cases later get overturned. But their % of rulings later overturned is no higher than other courts.
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?
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.
I didn't say that. Actually, I dislike most of the regulation in the telecomunications industry, but I also can't overlook the possibility that competition could lower my cable bill, or at least give me an alternative provider that might not screw up my billing every month
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
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.
The irony in this is Qwest, generally one of the lousier Baby Bells, has a great DSL service offering. They'll partner with just about any ISPs that will pony up the bucks to drop in a local T-1 or greater connection to the QWest network, and offer dozens to hundreds of ISPs at reasonable rates (starting at roughly $22/month for 256K symmetrical, exclusive of ISP fees).
The cable companies have long complained what a burden it will be to provision cable modems with multiple ISPs, but it's just not true. All they have to be able to do is associate a subscriber, via the MAC address in their cable modem, with a DOCSIS config file that tells them which ISP to communicate with.
The telcos do have a bit of a head start, in that they have a logical and well-defined way to get the data off their network and onto the ISP: they require the ISP to buy telco services, in the form of T-1 or greater lines, to shovel the data across. I'm pretty certain the cable companies will be able to solve this problem in a cable company kind of way, too, if they just put their minds (well, engineers) to it. So let's have it, CableLabs, give us a cable standard for an ISP interconnect over cable.
This decision is more akin to the federal government requiring airlines to fly you to your destination regardless of which rental car company and hotel you will be using, rather than allowing them to refuse to fly you unless you use their rental cars, their hotels, etc. You wanna carry bits around on wire, fine. You wanna provide internet end-point services, that's fine too. Just don't tie the two businesses together.
If you're talking about the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge (PICC), it's not a tax. It was a payment mandated by the FCC that the long distance companies pay to the local phone companies, and it was set at about $1 per month for residence lines. Lots of long distance carriers charged up to $5 per month which is pure profiteering. It was really just a cost of doing business and they have no business charging you extra for that any more than they could charge a line item for the CEO's golden bidet. But they probably did it so they could say "don't blame us, it's a tax that the FCC forces us to collect". Which is a lie. I say "was" because that charge was eliminated for most phone lines in 2000. So if they're still collecting a "National Access Fee" in year 2003, consider it padding for the bill so they can offer you those low low long distance rates.