Court Ruling Points Way To Broadband Regulation

DarkHelmet writes "An article on CNET News indicates: 'A U.S. appeals court has rejected the Federal Communications Commission's request to rehear a case, in a move that could prompt local governments to regulate the cable industry.' The piece explains: 'The rejection could pave the way for municipalities to force cable companies to share their broadband Internet lines with third parties.' I personally can't wait for companies like Speakeasy to branch into the Cable Internet market and provide 10-100mbps service."

Comments

Whatever...

[eingram]

As long as prices keep falling (which I imagine they wouldn't if they weren't shared).

Re:Whatever...

[DonGar]

Who says prices are falling? In my experience they've been going up for the last couple years. Of course, comcast has moved in where I'm located.

Re:Whatever...

[Maestro4k]

• Who says prices are falling? In my experience they've been going up for the last couple years. Of course, comcast has moved in where I'm located.

Same where I'm at, also Comcast country. We see at least one rate increase a year. I'm beginning to think it'd be cheaper to just run my own TV network.

de?

[dukeisgod]

Flame me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be de-regulation?

Re:de?

[unitron]

You aren't so much wrong as defining regulation too narrowly. This is about shifting the power to regulate away from the federal level to the municipal level.

Not that I expect to have any more power to get local authorities to do as I wish than to get the federal government to do so. It'll still be about which rich guys are buddies with which other rich guys.

Re:de?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I expect to have any more power to get local authorities to do as I wish than to get the federal government to do so. It'll still be about which rich guys are buddies with which other rich guys.

Atleast when you are dealing with local regulation, you can move to another county, state, etc. if the local utility is pissing you off. With the federal regulation, we would probably eventually have 3 companies own cable for 99% of the country.

Re:de?

[Jaysyn]

That's one of the most non-redundant things I've seen on /.

Jaysyn

Re:de?

[Richthofen80]

What's in a Name? that which we call a Rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet.

-W. Shakespeare

Just because it has a name like 'regulation' or 'deregulation' doesn't mean bull.

By the way, I am against this. Not because I don't like cheap broadband, but because I hate the idea that instead of people running more wires, they want to force people to share wires. In my old town of Arlington, Mass, RCN and Comcast competed, but RCN ran its own infrastructure on the poles just like comcast did. Having its own infrastructure meant that RCN didn't have to work on whacky contracting rules or hire union or whatever. They worked on their own terms and had a superfast net connection/kickass cable/etc...

If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly would one company be able to offer more bandwidth than another? There's still a limited amount of bandwidth available. With DSL, you can have the lines to yourself, connected to your backbone.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

uh...so what you are saying (without realizing it)

share the bandwidth nearby

or

share the bandwidth, just further upstream.

and if cables bandwidth is shared...there must be some huge headroom, because here in san antonio, sustained downloads of 375Kb/s is now possible(we had a recent speed bump)

that's just shy of 3Megabit....faster then a T1 on the download side.

on the other hand...DSL here, max sustained download is 140Kb/s

so what was your point again?

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[DarkHelmet]

It's hardly the case that cable providers are capping off bandwidth because of lack of availability.

Mostly, it's a matter of giving the public only as much as they want, without having to go above and beyond the call.

If there are more than one cable internet provider within the area, companies are going to be more willing to compete for service plans with higher bandwidth. In turn, if the node ends up becoming saturated, the cable company will then be forced to upgrade the fiber running to the node.

The primary difference in this respect between DSL and Cable is that DSL is limiting speed based on technology. Cable is capping downloader's speeds based on demand.

I could be wrong, though.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, it's cheaper (hardware-wise) _not_ to limit bandwidth for each customer.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly would one company be able to offer more bandwidth than another? There's still a limited amount of bandwidth available.

Yes, but cable companies currently aren't giving end-users anywhere near that amount of bandwidth!

Currently there's no incentive whatsoever for the existing cable company (say, Time Warner) to provide quality service. There's no incentive for Time Warner not to terminate users who happen to exceed some arbitrary bandwidth usage pattern. There's no incentive for Time Warner to provide good customer service.

If you open the cable to other providers, you can have Time Warner offering 350KB/s down for $49.95, Competitor A offering 500KB/s down for $49.95, and Competitor B offering 150KB/s down for $29.95. That gives us, the people, a choice. If enough people start moving to the competition, Time Warner has to either reduce its price, raise its bandwidth caps, or do something else to retain its customers and win new ones.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[fatman1683]

There's a marked difference between the bandwidth a given line is physically capable of supporting, and the bandwidth your provider is actually prepared to give you.

With DSL, the closer you are to the CO, the higher your theoretical maximum bandwidth. But, in order to maintain consistency of service, DSL providers give everyone a speed that is determined to work all the way up to the maximum theoretical distance limit for DSL.

Cable doesn't quite work this way, for a few reasons. First, the cable TV system in the US is a fairly new network, meaning that the infrastructure itself is generally of higher quality. This is what allows cable to offer speeds superior to DSL. Second, a cable signal, being a much more powerful signal than DSL, and nearly always running on shielded lines, doesn't deteriorate near as badly over distance. Cable providers' bandwidth limits are purely marketing-driven, and don't come anywhere near the physical limits of the cable connection.

Presumably any government regulation would require the cable provider to sell the third-party ISPs as much bandwidth as they wanted, meaning that if you were willing to foot the bill, you could max out the physical capabilities of the cable network, which is probably somewhere close to LAN speed in most places.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Rakishi]

Cable does has limits, while they can be overcome by adding more lines, etc. it would also cost more money. In other words: the company could give everyone much more theoretical bandwidth but without upgrading their infrastructure the few Kazza whores would cause everyone else to have 56k.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Rick the Red]

Well, since Comcast artificially limits my bandwidth now, I would assume some other ISP would be able to raise that artificial limit. Or lower it. Or maybe Comcast would limit the bandwidth to the ISP and raise it for their own customers. Who knows? But the point is competition could result in higher bandwidth -- it's technically possible.

But since we're talking about the cable television industry, my bet is on this eventually reducing our bandwidth.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

The competition doesn't need to come from opening up cable lines if you are lucky. I get service from the Cincinnati branch of Time Warner, and with the aggressive push for DSL, TW upped the DL to 3mbit for $45 a month. (No usage caps I've come across either, and I've downloaded over 40 gigs last month of TV shows from suprnova). With Cinergy trying to bring internet access over power lines, I'm hoping there is another performance increase or price drop.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[NanoGator]

"How exactly would one company be able to offer more bandwidth than another? There's still a limited amount of bandwidth available. With DSL, you can have the lines to yourself, connected to your backbone."

The bottleneck between cable and DSL isn't removed, just moved to a different point in the network. You still need a big pipe going in, and that pipe can be saturated. Doesn't really matter which service you use.

So why would cable based broadband benefit from other players? Service. An ambitious upstart might provide ISP service to me as well as video on demand because their server is a lot closer to me than somewhere out on the net.

I agree with you, though. It's not clear that it'd be all that big of deal. The real question is: Are they making things better by allowing other companies to come in and provide the service, or are they paving the way for an even bigger company (Time Warner?) to bully their way in, and take over the broadband service from the companies who put the investment into making the network? Frankly, I don't see the value in providing this on the grounds that it cheats the companies laying down the big fat pipes.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how -- everyone in your neighboorhood is sharing the same 10mbs loop. Sure, someone could sell you 10mbs service, but you'd be essentially screwing everyone else.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[rossz]

The same way I can get 5meg/500k DSL from Sonic for $45/month while SBC charges $65/month for 1.3meg/128k. It's not that they can't provide the bandwidth, they just want to ring every penny they can out of us. SBC was offering much better bandwidth for a nice low price - except when you wanted a static IP, then they reamed you.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

Sources, please? Explanation? Statement that you used to be a janitor for a cable company? Anything?

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[sumdumass]

One of the benefits of forcing these companies to open up thier market is the local isp can use it. I'm sure they would consider this as a primary motive if they did force them to open it up.

Right now were I live there are 3 ISPs and 2 of them are about to go under because dsl is locked (other political reasons) and cable is overtaking the dial in subsciptions. In order for them to compete with high speed internet they would need the ability to go into an area like this. The one ISP that seems to be doing well is tryign to expand into a wirless market but it really isn't the same. It would be nice to see if the local ISPs could have access to resell the lines if nothing other then to keep them competative and live amungst themselves.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[bm_luethke]

"Cable providers' bandwidth limits are purely marketing-driven, and don't come anywhere near the physical limits of the cable connection."

Not entierly true (or at least it used to not be). I know there were places in the country (mostly California and New York with extremely high population density) where cable fell between dialup and ISDN - I knew a few people who claimed dialup speed. I do not know if that is still the case but do not think it is. Living in fairly rural east Tennessee I've pretty much always been about the only person in my area having cable. I used to get, and after some recent uncapping by the cable provider get again, insane downstream throughput.

Basically there was a certain amount of a shared resource.

I explained it as such: You have a highway running into your house. The speed limit is 600 mph but it only has one lane. If you have 10,000 cars wanting to go on it you may get 600 mph per car but you have to wait until your turn (latency kills you). If there is one car on the higway you get 600 mph all you want whenever you want.

DSL was a one line one car 400 mph highway, cable was a 600 mph as many cars as you want on the highway.

Is this still the case? Dunno, haven't really cared in quite a while. I suspect, based on the speed that I get, that it is no longer the case. If it is, then they have restructured the network to keep speeds up (though I still live in east tennessee so I don't know what Cali does now, I know I have not seen any of the complaints I used to constantly see back then). This was the mid/late 1990's when I was itnerested in the stuff.

I suspect the parent poster was using the same knowledge that I was above.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Cheo]

"sustained downloads of 375Kb/s is now possible...that's just shy of 3Megabit..."

This I do not understand. If 375Kb/s = 375,000 b/s, then how can this be more than 3,000,000 b/s?
Define: Megabit: Approximately one million bits of data

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

You and the parent seem to be thinking of different parts of the network when you talk about limits. Cable does degrade horribly when the other users max it out, but the cases you mention are caused by lack of upstream bandwith between your local network and the ISP. Even though speeds were ISDN-like to the outside world, you'd still get fast transfers if you were going directly between two subscribers in the same node, like a LAN.

So, whether or not cable limits are purely marketing driven depends not on the cable itself but the uplink connecting the ISP and the local cable. These links are usually sufficient these days, especially in areas with good DSL coverage. In monopolistic areas it isn't an issue because the markeing-driven limits are aggressive enough to keep usage low.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[mjh]

A lot of other folks have spoken to the capping of cable bandwidth, and what they're saying is true. But there's another aspect of bandwidth that I haven't seen touched yet.

Even if bandwidth were an issue (which it isn't) it would be fairly easy to give multiple ISP's access to the infrastructure without impacting each other's bandwidth. The cable that runs into a subscribers house is divided into a bunch of channels. In my home town, channel 3 is ABC, 6 is NBC, 11 is Fox, etc. To get cable modem to work over the cable plant you need two things to happen:

1. You need to ensure that the cable plant can transmit signals in two directions, and
2. You need to allocate a single channel for download and a single channel for upload.

Basically, a single ISP on the cable infrastructure needs two channels. If you want to give competitive access to the cable infrastructure, you could run the competing ISP on those same two channels, or you could allocate two completely new channels.

Where I live, there are three ISP's running on the local cable plant. They are all running on the same two channels because there's more than enough bandwidth to accomodate them. But if there weren't it would be an easy matter to allocate a couple of unused channels to one or more ISPs and effectively double the total available bandwidth on the system.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[BuckaBooBob]

DSL and Cable can have similar ammounts of bandwidth available to the user... If you think your DSL is all yours think again... your DSL is shared just like cable is once it hits a concentrator after that there is no difference between that and cable... I see too many cable companies under engineer there systems.. That is why some people see cable as slow (that or poor installations or .. the end user.. Yes the end user can destory his speeds by goofing with the wiring)... most Cable companies in Canada have speeds on cable that DSL has a hard time keeping up with (Well they could keep up with it but they have DSL throttled down or they are engineered to be faster or what ever reason they chose not to keep on par with speed).

DSL does have slightly lower Latency over all from my experience (But not by Much.. 5ms or ) but again that also depends on many many factors... that is just the average I have noticed in my city.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[BuckaBooBob]

Well your not wrong but your not 100% correct aswell :)

Cable has Tonnes of room for Downstream (Information to the Customer).. Its the dreaded upload is where you start to run into problems on cable.. most systems I have seen have ~20ish to 40ish mzh available for upload available (If they offer Telephony services this is significantly lower aswell as any other 2 way services) some systems might only have 20-30mzh available .. it depends on what they have in the field for equipment... Upstream carriers can be as small as 900khz to as large as 6mzh.. to make life easy a 6mzh upstream carrier has just over 5-8mbit useable payload.. So that is where the bottle neck can occur... so its not upgrading fiber to the node.. its decreasing the node size is where the gain can occur... More Customers = More Revenue and when you have more revenue you should have the money to make smaller nodes.. this is where the evil shareholders come into effect to slow you down... They want Crazy profits.. You want Crazy Speed... if they spend money to make you happy then the evil shareholders don't see massive profits and are unhappy... so.. the Solution... BE A GOOD SHAREHOLDER! tell all your rich geekish friends to buy up Voting shares in the cable company and demand higher speeds over profits all the time :) and you will see your speeds soar once your in the majority :)

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Sapwatso]

This I do not understand. If 375Kb/s = 375,000 b/s, then how can this be more than 3,000,000 b/s?

375KB/s would require more than a 3Mb/s connection, since 375,000*8=3,000,000 and that does not account for any overhead.

The grandparent probably just mistyped b for bit instead of B for Byte. Download speeds are customarily measured in Bytes, and connection speeds in bits.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Anonymous Coward]

But that 140KB/s is imposed not by the limitation of DSL, but by the limitation of the software at the switch. G.DMT allows speeds up to 8Mb down (800KB/s) and 1Mb up. G.Lite, I believe, allows 1.5Mb down, 640Kb up.

Here in Canada, our DSL has been bumped up to 3Mb down, 800Kb up. 4Mb is available also, with rumours that they will be bumped up to 6Mb soon.

So either a newer version of the G.Lite protocol allows for 3 Mb now, or Bell Canada switched things over to G.DMT, the way the good lord intended. Also, you're getting your B's mixed up. You should be using capital B, not lowercase for your estimations.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[cK-Gunslinger]

No,

375 Kb/s == 375,000 B/s == 375,000B/s * (8 b/B) == 3,000,000 b/s

I think...

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[chriso11]

First, the cable TV system in the US is a fairly new network, meaning that the infrastructure itself is generally of higher quality. This is what allows cable to offer speeds superior to DSL. Second, a cable signal, being a much more powerful signal than DSL, and nearly always running on shielded lines, doesn't deteriorate near as badly over distance.

No, the age of the system has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of design purpose: for phone service, all that was needed was a bidirectional channel of 8KHz. For cable, you needed significantly more BW, but in one direction. If the phone system had be designed with the BW of cable, then POTS would cost vastly more than it does.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[CyBlue]

Here in Austin (near San Antonio), I always get 2.7 - 2.8 Mb/s down and 320-360Kb/s up even during peak times on Time Warner Cable. So, I'm sure he was talking about those speeds.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[CyBlue]

To further your point a bit, cable lines usually have a few channels allocated to them. For the systems I'm familiar with, its usually 30Mb/s downstream and a fraction of that for upstream. Using the current technology as I know it, you couldn't offer 100Mb/s service on cable (yes, I know you *could*, but I'm refering to what we have now).

Inspite of all the theories on "shared bandwidth" the absolute truth of the matter is that your experience will vary. In the Austin area, cable is much faster than DSL. I guess Time Warner is doing a good job of balancing the load. DSL here through SWB is 1.2/128 while cable is 3.0/384 (or very close for the perfection freaks out there). I don't know anyone here on cable that doesn't get speeds faster than any affordable DSL package in the area. Of course, I'm sure in some places the scenario exists that the cable company has overloaded the cable segment and the system crawls at peak times. This could also happen with DSL if there are too many lines coming into the CO and not enough bandwidth at the CO to support them well. So, my point is that you can't say that either is better than the other without doing some research at your specific location.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[pilgrim23]

If shielded cable offers more bandwidth then yucky old phone wires, then could I get a speed-bump on my network by swapping from twisted pair running 100bT to BNC and 10B2?

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[Ween]

375Kb/s * 1.024 (because we all know 1k isnt 1000) = 384,000b/s. Now, 384000 * 8 (8 bits to the byte) = 3072000 bits. This is roughly equivalent to a 3mbit line. When you factor in overhead, a 3mbit line would get about 360Kb/s.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[dave1g]

In SA I was only getting near 300KB/S same here in Austin. on RR.

yes you capitalize the b for god's sake..

if you got 300 Kbps I would laugh at you

B = byte, b = bit

Anyways, the point is that I think RR is one of the best cable internet companies, they actually give the speeds they quote.

Due to an awsome rent agreementI jsut signed I'm thinking of upgrading to homebusiness clas RR, 3-4 mbps!!!! w00t and 768 up, awsome.

Using the rr speed tests here

SATX RR speed tests (anyone can use these tests, try out your speed.

HIGHER TEST

Your line speed:

3185 Kbps

390.3 K bytes/sec

but that is purely inside the RR network, on the net im only getting near 300

LOWER TEST

Roadrunner Bandwidth Results
Loaded 1858812 bytes in 5.344 seconds.
Your throughput is:
2783 Kb/s (kiloBITS per second)
348 KB/s (kiloBYTES per second)

also here is another. bandwidthplace speed test

My results from there

Speed
2.6 megabits per second

Communications 2.6 megabits per second
Storage 321.6 kilobytes per second
1MB file download 3.2 seconds
Subjective rating Great

Info
Date & time Friday, April 2, 5:06PM*
Test type IDT4 Free
Connection type Cable
Region Texas
Data size 605KB
IP address 24.243.***.** :-p
Provider ROADRUNNER-SOUTHWEST

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[fatman1683]

I was referring to the age of the design model. The telephone system in most of the United States, especially the northeast, was designed and implemented nearly a century before large-scale data transfer became de rigeur for pretty much any serious business. That level of technology was never intended to transfer large amounts of information, so the technologies that use it for that purpose (I.E., DSL) are approaching the hard engineering limits imposed by the system's underlying design principles.

Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared

[ryan7013]

my cable speeds top 390KB/s and www.2wire.com says I occasionally get 4Mb downloads. I live in the mountains in Colorado where comcast finally showed up. They just bumped up the speed minimum, speed now is 2.2Mb maximum seems to cap out around 4.5-5Mb if your lucky.

Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, with government regulation your cable bills will be cheaper, and your service better. Great. But once the government has latched onto this industry it'll never let go. We could soon see cable TV channels with an anti-war bias get censored off the air 'for our own good', and copy protection built right into the cable system (protected by the DMCA, naturally). Say goodbye to having non-fritz chip enabled machines (like Linux boxen) working on broadband. I hope it doesn't come to this.

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I borrow your tinfoil hat? Seriously folks, there is way to much FUD about the government going on here.

Re:Always a downside

[Animaniac]

We could soon see cable TV channels with an anti-war bias get censored off the air 'for our own good'

I'm really tired of hearing this slippery-slope argument of liberal outlets being eliminated if the government regulated the media infrastructure. Although there is always the chance of funny-business(TM) once the government gets involved, it's highly unlikey they would move to overtly violate first ammendment rights. If they did, the media itself (even conservative media) would be quick to create a rukus as they always look out for their own good. Grow up, believe it or not the government isn't out to get you.

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster said 'local governments'. From what I've gathered, local (city?) and state governments are generally a lot less ominous than the federal government. If that's the case, I suppose it wouldn't be so bad?

Re:Always a downside

[NonSequor]

They're usually at least as incompetent as the federal government though.

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

All the major TV networks in this country are ALREADY heavily controlled and censored.

Re:Always a downside

[azuretek]

yea, just how the government tells us who we can call on the phone... or where we can drive to...

the government controls alot and we still have freedom to do what we like, just quit with the stupid idea that the government is there to censor. In reality the government dosen't care much about anything we do, as long as we go to war when they need us and we pay our taxes they could care less what we do.

Police and other authorities are only there so that everyone will feel safe. Freedom to do what you like will allways be around in the US, we've never been told what to think or what to do. They may try to influence us but it is allways our choice. Anyway, enough of my stupid rant that is completely off topic.

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up, believe it or not the government isn't out to get you.

Maybe not. But if one adds up the evidence that it is out to get us (or at least set up the ability to monitor our every movement and utterance) versus the evidence that it trusts us, I think anyone would be hard pressed to say the latter is prevailing in the last half century or so. And that trend is accelerating.

The tin foil hat lines are cute but let's not forget that there are some fundamentally solid reasons not to put too much power in the hands of any one social entity.

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did George Bush get to moderate comments?

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

yea (sic), just how the government tells us who we can call on the phone... or where we can drive to...

Well no, just whether you can drive or not. And you can fly, maybe, if it assigns you as a green or yellow. Give it six months or so before that system is extended to Amtrak and Greyhound.

In reality the government dosen't care much about anything we doI>

Yes. Right up until they do care. Then you are toast because they know everything about you up to and including how much your morning dump weighed.

Police and other authorities are only there so that everyone will feel safe.

And thank goodness for their benevolence. We wouldn't want any peace officers being over zealous in their pursuit of their next promotion. (Nah, that's just for prosecutors.)

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm? How much my morning dump weighed. Hmm? You mean they would put a tap on my septic tank?
Heck I'd be happy if they hooked me up to the sewer lines but making sweage run up hill with out a pump is a bitch.

I have "Brighthouse" (RR) Cable here I can have my choice of Brighthouse, AOL, or Earthlink. I stayed with "Brighthouse" (RR). I had ADSL it's was broke about half the time and cost 10 bucks more a month and never made the 1 mbt download level the upload was flat digusting. My Cable internet access is never below 1 Mbt and is often a 2 Mbt downstream. It has been down once in 2 years once because my Modem died. They replaced it for free Sorry I don't need no court helping me out. It ain't broke.

Re:Always a downside

[sumdumass]

Amen brother,

by the way one of the most liberal tlevision/radio outlets is pbs (public briadcasting stations) and npr (national public radio)both of wich are funded and regulated by the government. I don't think it is becuase the government said "be liberal" rather then the type of people that work for them are. i guess it shows that it can work.

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

just thought I'd clarify that they npr and pbs are only very slightly funded by the govt.. mostly through other sources (viewer contributions, corporate underwriting, etc.)

Re:Always a downside

[mgoren]

I just want to point out the other side.. that there is also the possibility of censorship by the cable company when there is no real competition. If everyone ends up getting broadband from one cable provider or an oligopoly of a few, those providers have the ability to decide you can't run any servers, you only get x upload bandwidth, your screening of Disney's movie (if, say, the cable company buys disney) will receive a higher QOS than a movie from some other company, etc. All of these either are already happening or really could happen.

While I certainly understand the concern about government censorship, if I'm not mistaken in this case we're talking about the government forcing the companies to allow other companies to use their pipes. While this may or may not be fair, there will be compensation (obviously the companies using the pipes will pay), and it should force competition... which is a Very Good Thing for the above reasons. And it doesn't seem likely to me that this type of regulation would cause government censorship... (the reclassification as "telecommunications" would allow government spying, but that's not really anything new.)

Re:Always a downside

[Lumpy]

we are also forgetting one important thing. These "local Governments" are the ones that give the monoply franchise agreements to the cable company to keep competition out. The Cable company has to pay a kickback to the city to keep it that way or even in business. NO OTHER BUSINESS is required to pay a kickback to the city... the local Menards doesn't have to pay a franchise fee directly to the city.

Thisw is very typical in many large to small towns.... Metro areas like detroit and chicago that have more than 1 cable company can't charge these kickbacks as they know that the fed's would be all over them.

many times a cable rate increase is attached to the city increasing their kickback amount demanded from the calbe company. but most times It's trying to increase profitability.

The first step in making things better is to fight any franchise kickbacks your local community is getting out of the cable company and any unfair laws that allow them to have a monoply and not allow competition to come in.

Re:Always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

The cable ain't broke, but you'd be telling a different story if the only broadband service available was that crappy DSL. Just because the competition and service in your area are sufficient doesn't mean the same is true everywhere. That's why they're talking about giving power to regulate to local governments rather than the feds.

Re:Always a downside

[Krow10]

The poster said 'local governments'. From what I've gathered, local (city?) and state governments are generally a lot less ominous than the federal government. If that's the case, I suppose it wouldn't be so bad?

You must have a benign local government. Lucky you. I've found it to be the case that local governments tend to cut corners on rights violations more and tend to be more intrusive than state and federal; and state governments more than federal. This tends to affect outsiders and minorities (I mean this term in the broadest sense -- political as well as ethnic and religious) in the community more -- smaller governments (and government-like entities) tend to be much more lax about imposing a tyranny of the majority than larger governments. Another reason is the lower visibility of smaller governments -- Deep throat from the Occoquan, VA PD isn't really going to make the front page of the Washington Post. Smaller governments are more resposive to local majorities, but they also tend to be the most intrusive in my experience. The epitome of this phenomenon is the homeowners' association (technically not a government entity, but very government-like.)

Cheers,
Craig

Re:Always a downside

[artemis67]

Oh, no! Look out! The black helicopters are coming for you! Run!

RUN!!!

Re:Always a downside

[stang7423]

Umm...Okay, now take off your tinfoil hat. The regulation is of the Cable industry, NOT the television industry. Last time I looked Time Warner was the only cable provider that had any affiliation with the content that it broadcasted. The local government will be able to regulate the cable industry in the area but not necessarly the content it serves. The last time I checked this was still a free coutry with free speech and everything (John Ashcroft aside).

As for your fits about copy protection, I fell this regulation could be a good thing. It is another player in the decision making process besides the cable industries and the MPAA. This can only be good because history shows that the public has had more success manipulating its government than either of the MPAA or the Cable industry.

Re:Always a downside

[Doomdark]

NO OTHER BUSINESS is required to pay a kickback to the city... the local Menards doesn't have to pay a franchise fee directly to the city.

Maybe, but telcos definitely have to (many states regulate pricing, require certain level of service for remote areas etc. etc. etc). And developers sometimes have to pay for infrastructure and/or maintenance costs, for new malls. The concept is hardly unique to cable cos.

I do agree in that kickbacks should be eliminated, even more so to prevent unfair competition by cities, states, when trying to lure in "lucrative" corporation HQs. But with regards to monopolies; as long as monopolies exist, I don't have a problem with local governance from demanding something in return. That is, if monopolies go, all kickbacks could and should go; if not, it makes sense that monopoly status is auctioned one way or the other, not just given with no strings attached.

Re:Always a downside

[Lumpy]

the problem is that the Local city make a LAW against starting your own calbe TV company or telecommunications company. so they can protect their kickbacks. I ran into it here with my community WIFI network, the city wanted me to either start paying their bribes or they would arrest all of us and sieze all our equipment. a simple 4 part series on city corruption by the local TV station (the main anchor being one of our charter members) shut them up and made them back off, but they will try to squeeze us again for kickbacks.

It's underhanded, and it's wrong, the city officials know it.

Re:Always a downside

[pianophile]

pbs (public briadcasting stations) and npr (national public radio)both of wich are funded and regulated by the government.

This is an exaggeration. NPR and PBS get little of their funding from Federal sources.

NPR is only 1-2% Federally funded:
http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.h tml

PBS is 16% federally funded:
http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp .html

Re:Always a downside

[Odinson]

Grow up, believe it or not the government isn't out to get you.

No actually they are out to get us. The only reason they haven't succeeded is they are out to get each other as well.

Assuming people aren't out to get you won't get you very far in NY.

Fedreralzation of almost anything is a prelude to failure. The "conservitive" Repulicans used to believe that. Remember states rights? Let dumb states make dumb deceisions, and smart ones succeed?

Re:Always a downside

[sumdumass]

well that may be the case now, but it wasn't always. besides. It still makes the case that they can exist without being directly sencored influenced by the government.

Re:Always a downside

[Doomdark]

Yeah, that is plain wrong, not to mention short-sighted and stupid from local authorities' part. :-/
But probably "business as usual" in many places.

More bad news.

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

This makes it much easier for the good old Department of Justice to put wiretaps on these lines. This may mean that bigger authorities than the RIAA may throw their hat into the ring for fighting P2P networks, among other things.

Re:More bad news.

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

I felt I should clarify this a little bit. The reason that this would make it easier for the DOJ to tap the lines is because the cable lines would now be classified as telecommunication lines as opposed to their former classification of information service lines. The requirements for getting permission to tap an information service line is much more stringent than tapping a telecommunications line.

Re:More bad news.

[Atzanteol]

This may mean that bigger authorities than the RIAA may throw their hat into the ring for fighting P2P networks, among other things.

Yes, among other things. Like stopping crime by getting wire-taps on criminals. This does happen to be an area of interest for the FBI. Most of them could give a shit about somebody downloading the latest pop album.

Re:More bad news.

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes it much easier for the good old Department of Justice to put wiretaps on these lines.

To what end? To watch my HTTPS, VPN traffic or SSH connections? Go ahead. I can guarentee you the time they waste brute force decrypting my connections to look for illegal activity is time wasted going after real criminals. The most you'll see from me is purchasing shit from eBay or writing notes to my wife.

Nationalize it

[BalloonMan]

Soooo, does this mean we are (in essence) taking all the wires that the cables companies have strung by eminent domain? Not that I'm opposed to nationalizing infrastructure, but I think we ought to pay them something for their trouble. Oh wait, I've already paid for that wire ten times over with my skyrocketing cable bill.

Re:Nationalize it

[Jacer]

Get educated. By the laws of eminent domain the governemnt (through taxes) will have to pay an acceptable price for those lines.

Re:Nationalize it

[Money for Nothin']

What, like when the government pays $1 for $300k worth of farm land? -- http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/art icles/2004/04/02/family_accuses_state_of_allowing_ unfair_auction_of_its_former_land/

Re:Nationalize it

[Jacer]

In that case, the government auctioned the land off. They didn't aquire it. A scenario like that leads one to believe that it was reposesed.

Faster service?

[Fiz Ocelot]

Well technically you could offer faster service. If you alter your cable modem's firmware you could get much higher speeds... But the company has tools to detect that and ban your modem from the network, and send you a nice letter. But since it's shared bandwith you can't really do that anyway.

The downside of open access

[Wesley Felter]

If your ISP is different than the company that maintains the wires, they always point fingers at each other when there's an outage. People have discovered this over and over with DSL, and there's no reason to think it would be any different with cable.

In Austin there are three cable "ISPs": RoadRunner, Earthlink, and a local one whose name I forgot. Since they all use RR's physical plant, I choose RR since there's only one company to call and one company to blame.

The only solution to this appears to be structural separation (where the company that owns the wires is not allowed to be an ISP), but this has its own problems (like it would probably be more expensive).

Re:The downside of open access

[Rick the Red]

The only solution to this appears to be structural separation (where the company that owns the wires is not allowed to be an ISP), but this has its own problems (like it would probably be more expensive).

Well, my In-Laws live in Tacoma, WA, where the city has a cable system in direct competition with Comcast. They subscribe to the city system, and have their choice of three ISPs for high-speed internet. The city (the folks who own the wires) is not one of them. We, on the other hand, have Comcast (alas, we don't live in Tacoma). Our only choice of ISP is Comcast. And we pay more than my In-Laws. So no, what you describe is not more expensive, it's cheaper. That's what competition does -- it drives down prices.

What are the rates in Austin, compaired to nearby communities where there is only 1 cable ISP? I'll be Austin's cheaper.

Re:The downside of open access

[prator]

Grande also offers cable & broadband, but I'm not sure if they use RR's lines.

-prator

Re:The downside of open access

[repetty]

> In Austin there are three cable "ISPs": RoadRunner, Earthlink,
> and a local one whose name I forgot.

Grande.

What you say about DSL is true. They really are Keystone Cops operations.

I live in the Austin city limits. My house was built in 1978. I've been waiting for DSL as an option since 1998 but still can't get it. I figure I never will.

I remember when Southwestern Bell used to run ads that went something like, "Who do you want to trust your data to? A cable TV company, or the telephone company, which has provided reliable service for years?"

Well, the answer is: the cable TV company.

--Richard, an ex-swbell.net dialup subscriber

Re:The downside of open access

[GreyWolf3000]

44.95 for me, because I refuse to get basic cable. 39.95 if I buckled down and got cable.

They must really want me to watch American Idol. They'll get no such pleasure out of me.

Re:The downside of open access

[Feztaa]

That's just silly. Get the basic cable to save you the money, then throw out your TV. There you go, you're saving money and you never have to watch basic cable.

Re:The downside of open access

[red floyd]

No, it's $39.95 PLUS the $15-20 for basic cable, thereby costing more.

Re:The downside of open access

[droyad]

The same here in Aussie. Telstra owns most of the ADSL infrastructure, so our company chooses Telstra for broadband services. Now we have has situations where Telstra blamed Telstra for problems and we got nowhere. This is because the retail and wholesale internet are two completely independant business units.

Telstra Retail actually has to go through the same painfull channel every other ISP goes through to get their connections, not favourites (in theory at least).

Re:The downside of open access

[anagama]

That's a good deal. I have comcast internet service without cable TV service. And of course, there is zero competition in my area (unless you consider sattelite to be competition).

My bill is $55/month.

Re:The downside of open access

[Fastolfe]

The only solution to this appears to be structural separation

I agree, and personally would like to see this even for telcos. The company owning the physical lines would be run more like a public utility.

The only problem with the approach that I can see is the probability that this utility will have no incentive to run in anything but a maintenance mode. They're not going to roll fiber out to every home, for example. What would be the point? They can't actually sell a service over it.

I'm not sure I agree with any of the situations where an incumbent carrier of any kind was required to give competitors access to its infrastructure. Yah, it's sucky that no competitor can afford to build out what the incumbent has already built, but is that really the community's problem? The incumbent carrier's? The FCC and/or legislatures say it is, but I'm not convinced yet.

Re:The downside of open access

[forkboy]

Dear Smartass,

Just so you know, American Idol is on network television....you know, the public broadcast airwaves. That's where most of the crap lies these days. If you like to watch a little TV now and then and actually see something worthwhile, the only way that's going to happen is with cable.

Bragging about not watching TV is so 90's. Get over yourself.

Re:The downside of open access

[Wesley Felter]

The only problem with the approach that I can see is the probability that this utility will have no incentive to run in anything but a maintenance mode. They're not going to roll fiber out to every home, for example.

One solution that has been suggested is to offload the risk to the customer. Want fiber to your home? Pay the $2,000 for the utility to install it.

Re:The downside of open access

[Feztaa]

44.95 for me, because I refuse to get basic cable. 39.95 if I buckled down and got cable.

No, it's $39.95 PLUS the $15-20 for basic cable, thereby costing more.

So which is it? At first you're saying that you're actually paying more because you don't have basic cable, then you're saying that basic cable would be an extra $15-20.

Re:The downside of open access

[Anonymous Cow herd]

It could be other factors that are keeping the prices down for your In-Laws, such as economies of scale, equipment upgrade cost distributed per capita/user, regional differences in cost of living, etc...

Re:The downside of open access

[Rick the Red]

No, Comcast screwed their Tacoma customers until the city provided some competition. Now Tacoma enjoys the lowest Comcast rates in the area.

FYI, what happened was the city decided to string fiber optic throughout the town to read the electric meters. Since they were going to run the fiber anyway, using it for cable TV and broadband internet was just frosting on the cake, so to speak. This wouldn't have happened if they weren't going to run the fiber anyway. And it's only economical because of the density you get in a city. Out where I live it's still cheaper to pay some guy to go around and read the (relatively few) meters, so we'll never see it.

Re:The downside of open access

[Anonymous Cow herd]

Er... is Comcast using the fiber as well, or are they still running on their own equipment?

Re:The downside of open access

[Rick the Red]

They're still running their own cable.

Cable vs Phone

[Karplusan]

I was talking to a friend of mine earlier and it sounded like the Cable Broadband was about ready to do what Phone companies had to do years ago. Is it feasible, or even proper for each phone company to have it's own phone lines for it to use? If that were true, then every house would have 3 or more phone lines for the different companies your phones are on. That is worse than the current state where we have more phone numbers than people in the house. So, there was one phone company that owned all the phone lines, and then the government saw this as a monopoly and opened it up so we could afford to have more phones than people. Broadband, there has been one company that made all physical wiring, and only uses 10% of it and chokes out any competition. So the government will have to intervene and make it possible for companies to compete.

Re:Cable vs Phone

[Feanturi]

As someone who works directly in the cable field, I cringe at the thought of two different companies working the same plant in the street. In my city there used to be two companies, but the CRTC (this is Canada) split the city between the companies, so each one had its own territory with its own wires. Then the other company bought the one I worked at, and got the whole city, and I had to start working in the *HORRIBLE MESS* that they had already destroyed their reputation with on the other side of town. It's getting better now, since those of us from the bought company (with stricter training and higher standards, pride, etc) have worked the other side of the city enough now that it's not in such crappy shape. I can't imagine what it would be like if we were still separate, but directly in competition on the same wires. I would quit.

Re:Cable vs Phone

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true, then every house would have 3 or more phone lines for the different companies your phones are on.

Imagine if they did run 3 or more cable wires to your house for each company. If you could run each at near LAN speed, then bridge then 3+ connections, well, all the pr0n, warez, DVDs, etc that your heart contents. You might not be able to buy disk space fast enough if you were running a setup like that 24x7.

Double-edged sword

[sn00ker]

On the one hand, you have a ruling which is potentially good for competitive offerings.
Don't knock competition. I'd love competition in the local loop, and you guys really have no idea just how lucky you are to even have a choice of cable or DSL.

But, on the other hand, you have a ruling which allows in the thugs of the Department of Justice. And that is a huge down side. We're all familiar with the stories of the various barely-legal taps that FBI have been indulging in under the Patriot Act. I'd be terrified at the idea that they could use that same bullshit legislation to place sniffers onto a shared medium with my 'net traffic on it.

Still, that's a good market - Start a cable ISP that does customer-to-company encryption. That way the Fibbies can't sniff the traffic off the wire, they have to go to the trouble of getting a warrant and sniffing off a switch at your office.
Of course, if Shrub gets elected again you can be sure that such an ISP model would be out-lawed - Entirely on the grounds of fighting terrorism, obviously.

Re:Double-edged sword

[Wesley Felter]

Start a cable ISP that does customer-to-company encryption.

You mean like the encryption in every DOCSIS cable modem?

Re:Double-edged sword

[shweazel]

you mean like the encryption in my DOCSIS modem that the cable company doesnt use?

10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the current DOCSIS 1.0 spec, 10/100 is impossible. And due to the fact that most cable providers only support DOCSIS 1.0 right now, the only way you are going to see 10/100 to the home is over fiber... And I don't think that is going to fit into the speakeasy price plan of 19.95 a month...

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean "10/100"?

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

And may I also add... Does any one here really understand shared bandwidth? Think about it. No matter how you get to the internet, you are going to share bandwidth somewhere. And as long as your service provider monitors the congestions points of the network and upgrades those points before they become a problem, you will never see a slow down. This goes for DSL, fiber, dial up, cable, wireless, and what ever you may use to get online.

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

10/100 = 10mbps / 100mbps as quoted from the orignal post...

' I personally can't wait for companies like Speakeasy to branch into the Cable Internet market and provide 10-100mbps service."

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

No he said 10/100. That makes no sense whatsoever. You can do 10 megabits over DOCSIS just fine, and there are a few ISP's that offer uncapped service where speeds reach in excess of this.

DOCSIS will support speeds up to 45 megabits, so I do not quite understand the point he is trying to make.

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but with DSL, you do not depend on your local phone company to come out and re-partiton your cable segment every 6 months as new subscribers crowd out your network.

With DSL, you have your own private connection between you and the DSLAM. Cable will get crowded a LOT faster than your DSLAM will.

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

DOCSIS will support speeds up to 45mb, but right now, with the current use of DOCSIS 1.0 or DOCSIS 1.1 and if the cable provider is using 16-QAM on the Upstream Interfaces of the CMTS it is possible to achieve 10.24mb. But keep in mind that most MSO's run 500+ nodes/homes per Upstream. With 500 people it can be hard to get the full 10.24mb to your self. Just because someone offers a service doesn't mean they can delivery. remember you are talking to sales people when you are getting there service offerings.

Now with DOCSIS 2.0, it will offer 64-QAM which will allow a much greater Upstream bandwidth.

For more answers to your wonderful little learning minds... http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications/

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are telling me that a fully loaded DSLAM with an inadequate internet feed is going to be faster than a cable modem on a "shared network"... I would sure like to see that.

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but with DSL, you do not depend on your local phone company to come out and re-partiton your cable segment every 6 months as new subscribers crowd out your network.

With DSL, you have your own private connection between you and the DSLAM. Cable will get crowded a LOT faster than your DSLAM will.

And if your DSL is running to a remote DSLAM, then you will have almost the same bottlenecks that you would with cable anyways. Of course with DSL there might not be a direct bottleneck between you and your neighbor, but it might be on the T3 trunk line right down the street. Either way you look at it, it can be very difficult to tell the difference between the two.

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to qualify the DSL network as "inadequate", you don't have much of an argument.

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Martin Blank]

Maybe for you. I'm in the process of instituting my own, personal, completely unshared homing pigeon network. Mega bandwidth, and you can't have any of it, either. Nyah.

Re:10/100 over cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is a heck of a lot of dark or barely-used fibre in a lot of cities in Canada and the US. People went nuts and pulled it everywhere then had nowhere to sell it, so now there's a glut. I can definitely see some of it being used to provide high speed symmetrical last mile connections in the near future.

Re:Hmmm

[Sla$hd0tSux0r]

what is your point?

We dont want to see our politicians blindly pointing fingers and playing the blame game. It just isn't good politics.

Which makes me wonder, what are we doing right NOW to prevent an attack that could come TOMORROW? Seems like we are obsessed with what happened in the past instead of taking care of the future.

just talking about this . . .

[lavaface]

I was talking to my friends about proposed a la carte packages after visiting comcast's web page and realizing that their starter package is 52.99. That does not include sales taxes and the inevitable fees. In that discussion, I mentioned I just want a fast data connection.

Ultimately, everyone will be better served by competition in this market. The main reason I wanted comcast was to receive the local cable access channel. Small producers like myself are budding every day. With fast data pipes, channels could proliferate. Companies like Atom Films, Project Greenlight and the like could offer premium subscription services.

In case the benefits of this aren't immediately obvious, let me add one feature the /. crowd can surely appreiciate -- cable porn. (yeah, yeah I know there's Spice and the like but this way, there could be an Indie Nudes or Suicide Girls Channel)

Ultimately, producers of content could market directly to consumers. Aggregators (like current channels) could make the process easier. Expect an explosion of creativity . . .

Re:just talking about this . . .

[lavaface]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I wanted to clarify that the starter package is for TV service. Cable internet would be an additional 42.99 + fees and tax. I would gladly pay $50 for a 35mbps connection. Then, if I wanted, I could subscribe to individual "channels." There would be plenty of free stuff, but some niche channels would command a premium. Imagine IMDB connected with links to pay and watch movies. Damn!

Of course, this could also pave the way for independent producers to make a living, or at least cover costs for their works. We have already seen an explosion of DIY porn sites. With Final Cut Pro and relatively cheap DV cameras, the market could explode into other realms -documentaries, music videos-you name it.

And of course, we may see a rise in video blogging. Current blogs serve as filters and moderators of comment. Future blogs could help viewers sort though the myriad of news and entertainment choices. This does not bode well for corporate, authoritarian control so expect a fight. But, eventually, I think that the independent spirits of the human race will prevail.

Re:just talking about this . . .

[svallarian]

That can't be their smallest package. If i'm not mistaken, you can still order the "lifeline" package which would only be channels 2-13.

But it should qualify for al-a-carte.

but good luck getting those bastards at comcast to go for it.

Anyone know if DTV offers a similar service anymore? They used to 3ish years ago...

Steven V.

Re:just talking about this . . .

[lavaface]

They may have such a package but it's not advertised on their website. I can pick up most channels with an antenna just fine (even MTV2!) I'm leaning towards DirecTV. They have a Tivo box for $99 and their monthly service is $43. Then again, I may just forgo subscription television and continue to rent movies from Netflix and my local independent video store. Most of TV is crap and I have a ton of Simpsons tapes and Family Guy DVDs. Tivo would be cool though; I'm sure that I could find a few hours of good programing a week on the 100+ channels that are offered.

Re:just talking about this . . .

[ckd]

The DirecTiVo box is great, since it can record two things at once and has no quality loss (the MPEG encoder is the uplink facility at Castle Rock...).

Re:just talking about this . . .

[lavaface]

werd

But I thought...

[Aero Leviathan]

...cable companies already had to share their lines? Isn't this how I'm able to get Earthlink Cable in my area (Rochester, NY) through Time Warner? (Earthlink is actually a couple dollars cheaper for us than Road Runner, since we don't have cable TV...)

Re:But I thought...

[azuretek]

I dont think they have to... or maybe there isn't a set rate they "have" to lease them out for...

I used to work for a DSL provider, the reason other companies could provide it was that the phone companies have to lease the line access for cheaper than consumer price and there is a set price it has to be for every phone company. Not only for DSL service but for phone service.

I work for a cable provider now but I am not sure if it works like this. I guess in some areas they have agreements with other companies.

Re:But I thought...

[macmouse]

In this case, earthlink and timewarner have made an deal, indepednant of the laws. [Another way of saying is it that they decided to work together and were not forced to by law]. Also, important to note that this practice is no where near wide spread. Its really an few test markets for the time being.

From my understanding, it is mostly an branding thing. You may be lucky and pay an few dollars less, but you are still going through the same backbone et al. Although, I may be wrong about this.

What's the point?

[grumling]

If cable companies have to open up their lines, what's the difference? Your favorite ISP will just set up a domain, or maybe a mail and www server near the cable system's backbone, and charge whatever the cable company charges them + 50% retail markup. Strangely enough, it will cost about the same, have the same level of service, etc.

You'd think that maybe we all would have learned something after the DSL fallout earlier in the decade.

Re:What's the point?

[dcw3]

If cable companies have to open up their lines, what's the difference? Your favorite ISP will just set up a domain, or maybe a mail and www server near the cable system's backbone, and charge whatever the cable company charges them + 50% retail markup. Strangely enough, it will cost about the same, have the same level of service, etc.
You'd think that maybe we all would have learned something after the DSL fallout earlier in the decade.

The point is that competition is lacking. I'm currently paying Cox Cable roughly $110/mo. (Extended basic, HBO, Showtime, and high speed (~2700+) internet). I live in urban northern VA, very near AOL HQ, and can't even get DSL because Verizon won't get off their asses and upgrade the local office. My only other option is to go with satellite. Why do you suppose companies like AOL & MSN can get away with charging $20+/mo for dial-up now...because the major competition has disappeared!

I think your memory of the DSL fallout is flawed. The telephone companies stonewalled on providing access to many of those other ISPs. Even so, they were successful in providing access at lower cost. The reason they can charge less is because they don't have the high overhead of the larger companies. I doubt that you could list a single DSL provider that was charging more then the telephone companies (I never saw one) were during the height of the .com revolution. We could certainly debate why some of these companies failed, but that would involve the .bomb fallout, the recession, and not just bad business plans.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even so, they were successful in providing access at lower cost..."

Well, it all depends on you define "success". I would say that running at an unprofitable price point is not successful; however, it happened until they burned through their VC.

All well and good, but for infrastructure

[konfoo]

Cablecos are notorious for being cheapskates. They brought us the $50 throw-away box, are unwilling to change, and charge an arm and a leg for any minor improvement. You can be sure that if they are to surrender their pipeline, that they will do the bare minimum to support any 3rd party. Sure, it may be good to have the ability to pick and choose between vendors, but ultimately someone is going to have to do maintenance on the pipe if it breaks. Hidden infrastructure and support charges will quickly kill any small service provider. They don't have the domain over the pipe, and they don't have the expertees. We tried this years back with ADSL. It was a total failure. How many of those companies are still around? None except Earthlink and a few others. The rest are.. you guessed it.. the telcos.

Re:All well and good, but for infrastructure

[pete6677]

There is a chance it might work if the regulatory penalties for non-compliance by the monopolies were so stiff that they would decide to comply. This is why it hasn't really worked out in the phone markets. SBC in Illinois has just been paying FCC fines for the last few years as a cost of doing business. Its worth it to them to prevent any competitor from really having a shot at serving the area. Only Verizon and MCI can even afford to try, and I doubt they make money on just the local service.

Re:All well and good, but for infrastructure

[GreyWolf3000]

Today I got support for my cable modem from Time Warner of all people. Without knowing what was actually wrong, they replaced the cable modem, it worked, then took off without charging me a dime.

Coablecos are not all the same. Even a multi-national sub-conglomerate greedy-pigheaded company might be nice to deal with every once in a while.

Re:All well and good, but for infrastructure

[Bombcar]

Ahem. I believe SpeakEasy.net is still around.

If not, then I'm getting my ADSL from thin air!

And they are very very good. Worth every penny I pay. :)

Re:All well and good, but for infrastructure

[silas_moeckel]

Now if you can get local municipalities to regulate you cold get fines so bad they need to comply and or loose there cable franchise. Well thats at least around me where the cable company has short contracts like 5 years and can be thrown out having to leave all the infrastructure in place. The flip side is they dont improve infrastructure unless they have to.

monopoly

[WindBourne]

I would rather that the justice allow the companies to keep their lines to themselves, but simply disallow them a local monopoly beyond a 5-10 year period.

I am sure that more than a few would say that is silly, but we already grant the baby bells a monopoly to guarentee 2-way communication. They are also regulated and pay heavy taxes. For tv, well, 2 major satellites systems are in place (echo and direct). By disallowing monopolies in cable, it will encourage a great deal more competition. I would like to see disney or warner take on Comcast (comcast makes Qwest look good; very hard to do).

Sounds like an exclusive spinal tap...

[Anonymous Coward]

"you can have the lines to yourself, connected to your backbone"

Offtopic and unnecessary

[lavaface]

Are you being sarcastic or merely trolling? Either way you're a tool.

Re:Offtopic and unnecessary

[bsDaemon]

Under the guise of April Fools Day, trolling goes.

However, while I wrote it in heat-of-the-moment let off of steam which has been building for a long while, I am mostly sincere. I am an absolutly strict constructionist. The job the federal government isn't to actually DO anything, but occasionally build an army for a short term, run the navy, and make sure the states don't tarriff each other. The president isn't supposed to have an agenda or a platform. He's supposed to shut up and execute the laws. that is why it's called the executive branch. The Judicial branch isn't supposed to try and make laws, just make sure they are upheld in court. Legal precidents are bullshit. Roe v. Wade only applys to those individuals.
Washington urged us not to enter into binding treaties or alliances. I don't think we have an obligation to cooperate with any nation. I think we can roll over whomever we can get away with if and when it appears expediant to do so. I believe in preemptive self defense on the scale of nations and states. But it's not like i'd go and shoot someone who looked like a burglar before they burgled. However, if someone breaks into my home, they are not breaking out, unless on the end of a .30cal hollowpoint from a Norinco MAC-90 assault rifle, and then only straight to hell.
The only reason I care about Ireland is because despite the fact that my earliest American ancesters left Cork in 1670 for Virginia where I still live, I got updated with fammine blood and have still lots of cultural herritage. If I were a WASP, I wouldn't give two shits about an "international community." I care about local and state politics. the Fed is supposed to be limited and unobtrusive.
I am completely anti-UN, find the EU to be a rather sad evolution (I am quite fond of Europe (not that i give a shit about european opinion of american politics) and hate to see it go to pots like that and lose character or national sovereignty), and am even concidering leaving the Catholic Church just to keep myself for being a hypocrit for refusing to vote for Jews due to their international ties with one another to appear to undermine their patriotism to host nations (such was the argument against JFK -- "he'll be ruled by the pope!" -- well, i refuse to support Isreal and I don't want Virginia, or the several states to be sold out on their account). Note: I have Jewish friends, and know many Jews. the fact that I dislike most of them is independent of their jewishness. therefor, I contend that I am not anti-semetic.

So, in short, i am not a tool. I just understand the way things should be. I read the constitution, declaration, federalist papers, and associated texts as a bible scholar would the old testiment. But believe me, bullshit laws and court decisions do not a new testiment equal.
I respect the right of others to decent, however the modern liberal establishment has politicized everything and it disgusts me. Many things ought to be above politics. The office of the President is one, whether from the inside or the out. War is another.

Re:Offtopic and unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you pro- or anti- Iraq war? (Sorry, my brain is 98% dead today). If you are pro- intervening with another nation for the sole purpose of dealing with one of Israel's enemies then I'd love to hear that explanation coming from someone with 'Free State Project' in their sig.

Re:Offtopic and unnecessary

[bsDaemon]

I believe islam to be fundimentally evil and it must be stopped. I believe the Crusades need to be finished due to the fact that we kept backing off when so near the goal the first time around. I want freedom and strict constructionalist interpretation of the constitution here, but i seriously don't give a shit about those camel-feltching assmonkeys in the middle east. We should just kill them all and take the petrol. I believe the use of nuclear weapons is justified, especially after wednesday's horrible display of inhumanity. The whole Suni Triangle ought to be ignited in a neutron-bomb carpet attack and kill EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM . These people we are fighting are immoral, inhuman little Satans who all deserve death and nothing less. Screw Gitmo, what we need is Auschwitz for these mother fuckers.
However, I saw no reason to get involved in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, Haiti, WW1 or WW2 (at least not until Britain was rolled over, beat into a bloody pulp, and gasping her final breaths -- then we could come in and save her ass and demand the Irish Republic and an end to partition as the cost of her own freedom from Germany). Korea and Vietnam, as battle grounds of the cold war were debatable. Obviously, handling them via the UN was the cause of failure. Nuclear weapons should have been used on China durring the Korean war as MacArthur wanted: Then we wouldn't need to still have troops over there after 50 years.

Re:Offtopic and unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

>then we could come in and save her ass and demand the Irish Republic

I love the way that clueless adolescent jizzgobblers like yourself (with your pathetic political platform and your fucking retarded ideals) think they know something about the politics of a country that they have probably never even set foot in.

Keep dreaming, cocksucker.

Re:OT, but necessary

[Zertan]

Preach on, least someone cares to speak their mind...but it will get modded down because others dont believe it.

and with the bubble comes...

[Anonymous Coward]

dirty sanchez!
(insert western movie soundtrack here)

Bandwidth Shared with neighbors

[Nazmun]

Everyone in your community goes through the same lines. The reason caps were originally put is because a handful of people can easily use all the bandwidth in the area if uncapped. This would leave everyone else with a pitiful service.

Re:Bandwidth Shared with neighbors

[dzd12]

This doesn't seem quite right... In an uncapped system, one user could potentially use all the bandwidth if he was the ONLY user (and then who cares?). Once you add a second user, each can only use half the bandwidth (if they are both utilizing their connection 100%). Three users, each gets 1/3. True that with a few high utilization users, you could hit the bandwidth limit of the line, but I don't think one user in a multiuser scenario can monopolize all the bandwidth.

you forgot wiretaps

[TubeSteak]

telecommunication service = wiretap. Imagine Carnivore @ the end of every loop. I'd also imagine that this would lower the requirements (for getting access to someone's datastream) & make them the same as plain jane phone taps.

Yea yea, not guilty, nothing to hide. There's nothing illegal about your girlfriend sending you naked pictures, or your porn subscription to youngfatfux.com, but lots of things we do/say day to day are potentially very embarassing. And what about that whole 'anonymity' thing? Why would they need to subpoena your emails or usenet postings when they can play man-in-the-middle and wait for you to give them the answers they're looking for?

bandwidth baby

[chunkwhite86]

'The rejection could pave the way for municipalities to force cable companies to share their broadband Internet lines with third parties.' I personally can't wait for companies like Speakeasy to branch into the Cable Internet market and provide 10-100mbps service."

I agree, imagine the impact this could have on modern bandwidth intensive technologies!

Deregulation?

[H8X55]

Court Ruling Points Way To Broadband Regulation

'The rejection could pave the way for municipalities to force cable companies to share their broadband Internet lines with third parties.'

Wouldn't that be deregulation?

Anal Probes

[repetty]

You forgot anal probing.

Is this real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, is this real? Or another April Fool's joke? I can't tell the difference anymore. Maybe I'll just go put my tinfoil hat on and not worry about it.

Telecommunication Act of 1996 ??

[matthewcraig]

First off, cable companies are already regulated.

In fact, the broadband market should already be very well opened to competition through regulation. It's been many years since The Telecommunication Act of 1996 was passed to do open their markets. The question is why is it not working out like predicted? There are a few companies that are moving into very specific cable markets, like Knology. However, this act was supposed to open up all markets (telcomm, cable, wireless, satellite) to anyone who wanted to sell services over existing bandwidth.

The fact we aren't seeing more competition can only be explained (a) if there are no interested firms, (b) if existing customers are too apathetic to new/quality services, or (c) if the regulation of the act are not being enforced. Does anyone know how the regulations of this act have played out in the past eight years in corportate practice? The article seems to indicate that FCC has been dragging their feet enforcing at least the cable market.

As far as I can tell, the regulation of TA1996 should be more than adequate for competition, in theory. Maybe future regulation will be a federal push encouraging existing carriers to roll out broadband to rural locations, although most people have satellite out there.

MPAA and CSS?

[enosys]

The MPAA isn't a government agency but look what they did with CSS and the DMCA. You don't need a government to do the copy protection parts at least.

Oh, and what bias do you want? Corporate or government? Are the networks fair and balanced now?

Re:MPAA and CSS?

[rogerz]

Excuse me?

DMCA = Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

The MPAA did not pass this. Congress did. Congress, to my knowledge, is part of the government. The MPAA lobbying for this act is not "government action", but the exercise of free speech.

Yes, CSS is a private activity. But, surely you don't object to private efforts to protect property, do you?

Re:MPAA and CSS?

[enosys]

I was responding to:
and copy protection built right into the cable system (protected by the DMCA, naturally)

My point was that you don't need the government to take control of the cable network to have something like that happen. Well, ok, you needed the government to pass the DMCA but now that it's there private companies can do whatever they want. Being sued by a company is also probably worse than dealing with the government as the company may be more intent on causing financial ruin. Yes, it seems many DMCA abuses eventually end, but the chilling effect is huge.

Oh, and as for CSS and protecting property, there's also the region coding, and I can't see that as protecting property. Plus it effectively tries to stop fair use and even all use of DVDs on certain operating systems.

Shared bandwidth and throttling

[pedrop357]

As my post will surely demonstrate, I'm not that familiar with how cable/DSL networks work.

Is it possible for cable companies to use some sort of demand based throttling ie., allow me to use as much bandwidth as my line/modem will allow until others begin to do the same? If the maximum possible bandwidth for my run is something like 45mb/s, allow me to use 20 of that until other people begin to use up the remaining 25.

Another example might be when I download ISOs. The first one d/l at ~345KB/s, when I go after the second one (different server), the first one drops down and the two seem to share the ~345KB/s, d/l at 165 and 180. When I went for the third one, they went down to ~115 each.

Could the cable companies set minimum thresholds to determine when to throttle high b/w users?

Re:Shared bandwidth and throttling

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been done before. @Home, the now out of business provider, started with all the modems wide open, no caps. The problem is that in this situation, people set up business class servers, at 10+ meg, as it costs them nothing compared to getting a fiber line. All of the avaiable bandwidth gets eaten, not leaving any for you.
The caps are there to make sure you get what you pay for, a point that many people fail to recognize...

Re:Shared bandwidth and throttling

[Wesley Felter]

The best way to do that is fair queueing.

Re:Shared bandwidth and throttling

[CyBlue]

If the cable companies let everyone use all the bandwidth they could, then prices would go way up because of the additional expense of buying large trunks to support all that traffic. It looks like you're getting 2.7MB/s. That's quite good, actually unless you mean Kb/s instead of KB/s. Another proposal in the past has been to limit the overall amount of data you can transfer. Such as give a user 30GB per month or something. Then your speed would be unthrottled, but once you hit that 30GB mark you'd start paying for additional data transfered. This way, the high bandwidth users pay for their extra share. Since I transfer VERY large amounts of data, I'd personally rather just wait a bit longer than pay extra to get it faster.

Re:Shared bandwidth and throttling

[pedrop357]

I didn't mean that I got as much as possible whenever I wanted. I was mainly talking about using the existing pipe(s) to their fullest when traffic is low. When other people begin to demand bandwidth, then throttling occurs. This is where minimum acceptable thresholds could come in. The concept would be identical to CPU usage. I run folding@home and it takes 100% of my CPU, but steps aside when other applications need CPU time. I'm thinking of some sort of priority based system, with different levels of priority based on bandwidth conditions. For instance, on a loop of 50Mb/s (random # as I don't know what a common speed is for loops), high bandwidth could be given low priority, so that my high b/w downloads are scaled back as people begin to demand b/w. I don't know even know if something like this is possible or cost effective.

Re:Shared bandwidth and throttling

[CyBlue]

If they unthrottle your connection, then it already works that way. 100 people on a line will split it 100 ways. 1 person on the line will get the full bandwith (minus hardware and destination site restrictions). But, the issue is that the cable company doesn't want people maxing out the bandwidth all the time. I believe that, at the ISP level, bandwidth is often metered. *someone* has to pay for all that additional bandwidth being used.

In...

[Anonymous Coward]

Soviet Russia, broadband regulates you.

I couldn't resist.

Flamebait? WTH?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H you dumb modders, the guy has a point.

Wow, the 9th Circuit stands up for free market?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, parallel universe. Reminds me of that cartoon where the cat won't eat the mice, mice won't eat cheese, and the dog/accountant exclaims "it just don't add up!"

Has anyone thought of RF limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I saw in here anyway. Lets see how these things operate, shall we?

First off, your downstream is going to be in a 6mhz channel bandwidth (thats the size of a tv channel, bandwidth wise.) Typical downstream is going to use 64 QAM, which is ~5 bits per hz. Basically ~27-28 megabits in 1 - 6mhz space. Now, if you use 256 QAM, this increases, probably around the ballpark of ~38mhz (its late, I'm tired)

Now onto upstream. Docsis dictates either 16qam or QPSK (4 qam) for upstream rates. 16qam = 3.5 bits per hz, qpsk = 1.5 bits per hz. Keep in mind, distance can be a factor in this as well. (yes, its not just dsl anymore for distance limitations, never has been when its comes down to modulation.) So you're probably figuring, great. we have 9 megabits to play with right? Well, in transport, yes, but not with a cable modem system.
In Docsis 1.0, most you could have for an upstream channel size is 1.6 Mhz. 1.6 Mhz * 1.5 bits/hz is going to leave you with about ~2.5 megabits.
In Docsis 1.1, you get 16qam and ability for 3.2 mhz channel sizes, so that'll leave you with about ~8-10 megabits. Since you can only cram so-many channels into a 6mhz block for upstream, you end up being fairly limited. The only way this will substantially increase will be if Docsis 2.0 is deployed around. Docsis 1.1 and Docsis 2.0 are more fun creatures, crypto signed firmware files by manufacturers.

Now, if you can co-lo your own CMTS(s) you can do docsis 2. Otherwise, you'll be waiting for cox/comcast/rr/whoever to upgrade their gear. I think also starting with docsis 1.1, they can make provisions in the cable modem for what vlan you'll fall into in the config file, but guess what? It won't matter what provider you have at that point if they can't co-lo their own CMTS. We'll use cox for an example. If I just have bandwidth running to them and they setup config with specifics and I'm their competition, but we're using same wire, unless its allocated different frequencies, you'll be sharing your preferred ISP w/ everyone else who uses their own ISPs. The only thing you'll really see with is maybe some dropped prices (which I'd hope) and possibly more downstream speeds. Otherwise, there just isn't the bandwidth to support it unless theres a massive upgrade to docsis 2.0, good luck seeing that in the near future. Also, if you are a cable co and maintain a cable plant + head end, you probably don't want someone else to bring their equipment in that knows nothing about the cable network, much like telco, all this needs to be engineered correctly.

Re:Has anyone thought of RF limitations?

[michael_cain]

Now, if you can co-lo your own CMTS(s)

Most of your analysis is spot on. I can think of at least two problems you don't mention that are going to come up early and often with co-lo.

First, upstream bandwidth is a really scarce resource for most cable companies. It's already in use for the cable company's DOCSIS cable modem system, for RF return from set-top boxes for premium video services (PPV, VOD and the like), and in some cases for telephony service. Upstream bandwidth limitations will impose a definite limit on the number of co-lo DOCSIS systems that could be run, and in some cases that limit will be zero. Not because the cable company is being a bad guy, but because of the physical reality of limited bandwidth, noise ingress, etc.

Second, many (most?) cable companies bridge multiple nodes together in the RF domain so that a single CMTS (or single blade in a big CMTS) serves the customers on all those nodes. An ISP using co-lo will have to live with whatever node aggregation the cable company is providing. The ISP might WANT to allocate more bandwidth per subscriber, but the RF-level bridging might make that impractical. It seems unlikely that the local franchising authority would make the cable company rearrange their network, possibly breaking other services, at the whim of the ISPs.

When I worked on multiple-ISP architecture questions for a large cable company, one of our basic assumptions was that all ISPs (including ourselves) would ride on the single DOCSIS system operated by the cable company. To the best of my knowledge, the ISPs were all in favor of that practice -- they WANTED to leave all of the ugly RF issues in the hands of the cable company.

Re:Telecommunication Act of 1996 ??

[Phil Karn]

The reason the 1996 act isn't working out is obvious to everybody but Congress and the lobbyists who pled with them not to be thrown into the briar patch.

The boundary lines were drawn in all the wrong places.

After a promising start, competition in the DSL market has nearly dried up because the local telcos that own the wires in the streets have absolutely no incentive to cooperate in good faith with CLECs that compete with the telcos' own DSL services. Look at how they always phrase the subject in public. They get indignant and act as if the government is trying to make them give away their wires to their competitors for free when that is not the case at all! Every CLEC pays the local telco for the use of their wires, and no one has ever suggested that they not.

If the boundary lines had been drawn where they belong -- right at the ends of the wires that run along public streets -- things would have turned out differently. The wires would be owned by a fully regulated entity that would be barred from any business other than renting access to those wires to any service provider able to pay a standard tariff. While they would still have an incentive to inflate their costs in order to inflate their tariffs, regulators have a lot of experience in scrutinizing the books of common carriers. And since the only part of the path that would be regulated are the actual wires, regulatory overhead would be kept to an absolute minimum.

Everything but the wires themselves would be the province of competitive, unregulated carriers that would set up the DSLAMs and routers and market their services to customers.

It's a simple and obvious way to do things, but this is not what Congress in its wisdom decided to do in 1996. Why is anybody surprised at how things turned out?

were have I seen this before?

[Spiked_Three]

Sounds great! We bust up a monopoly and things will get much better! Just like it did with the phone company! Oh wait, my local and long distance phone bill is now huge compared to what is used to be, and service is the worse it has ever been. I guess some consider that progress.
And why is SD always pumping up Speakeasy? My personal experience with them was that anything that goes wrong is the customers fault, followed by collection agencies. They're crooked unhelpful slobs like everyone else. I had a router go bad, I replaced it. Speakeasy refused to provide configuration information (Customer installed equipment) and insisted I buy an unwarranted router from them at 4 times the going price. Yeah, great service.

The futility of regulation

[sybert]

Open access (ISP competition) would be good but regulation cannot create this competition. Rents for pipes will either get set too low or too high, and either the pipe or the ISP's will eventually die. The chance of government bureaucrats getting prices right are very poor. Having structural separation can create ISP competition, but there will still be finger pointing and a monopoly pipe.

Once you have pipe competition, then there is a market, and no government regulation is needed. The pipes can then partner with competitive ISP's to better compete against the other pipes without a need for open access regulation.

The chance of the 9th circuit getting anything right are also very poor.

Is it fair to the cable companies?

[walterbyrd]

The companies that started home broadband, put up huge money, and took huge risks. I don't know that any of them are in the black from their investments yet. Most are out of business: TCI, @home, AT&T broadband.

Now, 3rd parties just get to walk in, and take advantage of everything that's been done with no effort and no risk.

Doesn't seem fair, or maybe I'm missing something.

Re:Is it fair to the cable companies?

[ELiTeUI]

No, it's not fair. But it's how things are done. Telecom companies overinvest in their infrastructure and then go bankrupt due to their debt. The banks (and therefore, society in general) end up eating their debts, and their assets are sold off for pennies on the dollar. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. Do this enough times, and you will eventually have a company who acquires a large enough chunk of assets for a small enough amount of money to be able to profitably deliver a good product to the masses at a price they can afford.

Give it one more cycle ;)

ELiTeUI

How will this work?

[andy1307]

What if my provider allows me unlimited downloads or let's me run a commercial website for a really low rate. Won't that affect my neighbours? I'd imagine the cable providers negotiating a rate with the incumbent cable company, but what would be a fair rate. The incumbent cable company can't just say take this very high rate or leave it.

That was part of the deal...

[Lowca]

... that AOL and Time-Warner had to make with the feds in order to merge. I don't believe any other cable companies out there are required to open access. I know that the ones here in Indianapolis aren't - with the exception of the local Brighthouse Networks franchise, which used to be a Time-Warner franchise.

Cable Specs

[hitech69]

Typical Downstream of 256 QAM = 37 Mbps after overhead, and Upstream is QAM16 = 8 Mbps after overhead. Typically you don't see those results, because you have to add in the factor of noise and losses due to distance and node combination. That downstream will typically be shared between 1000-1500 customers and the upstreams are shared from 0-300 customers.

Re:Telecommunication Act of 1996 ??

[matthewcraig]

For one thing, a fully regulated entity wouldn't have much incentive to upgrade the lines. Plus, while this might work for some industries, take into consideration all the carriers. No one (taxpayers or otherwise) should have to pay for nationwide WiFi service, for example.

Setup Cost

[thebra]

I just want to know when they are going to stop forcing customers to pay 50 bucks to come install it on your pc and when they are too dumb to understand your OS (when w2k was new, I can't imagine the look on their face if your running Linux) and don't know how to renew an IP address and still charge you, man that pissed me off.

Re:Setup Cost

[double_h]

I don't know about cable, but plenty of DSL providers will be happy to mail you a self-install kit when you sign up.

When I signed up with Speakeasy, they just sent me a DSL bridge, the cables to plug it into my router and phone jack, and a self-install CD which I left in the box because I already knew how to set up an IP connection.

Re:Setup Cost

[g0bshiTe]

My cable provider doesn't even support Linux, hell the tech had to call the home office four times on my win boxen alone. BTW win98 was the O/S.

After some time I reformatted my drive, and reloaded everything, I set up the TCP/IP myself instead of using their disk. I found my speed nearly doubled. I also decided to browse through the cd, and found a ton of spyware. One program in particular allowed them to connect to my computer remotely. They never made any mention of this, when I called tech support and asked about the program. They said that it was in case someone's connection wasn't working. I asked the guy "if it isn't working than how can you make a remote connection." He concluded the call without answering after that.

This isn't a liberal thing

[metalhed77]

This is traditionally a conservative/libertarian (yes I know the differences) argument; but can go either way really. Often time they use NPR and PBS to backup claims that government run media is biased.

The truth is, that this type of regulation is not going to affect content such as this much at all. The original poster does have his tinfoil hat on. But I resent you calling this a liberal issue when most liberals would in fact approve of it. Original poster was most likely a troll in fact.

Doesn't matter if its in my area

[Bendebecker]

If I can't afford it.

I'll sale my sole to the DOJ . . .

[eheldreth]

If it will finally get me any sort of broadband. Do you think this would encourage cable companies/phone companies to finally role out to the last mile (I live 3.5 miles from the CO)

Re:Speakeasy? Their Support SUCKS!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait? Must be a Speakeasy employee. It really hurts to see the truth posted, isn't it?

Re:Telecommunication Act of 1996 ??

[thczv]

They get indignant and act as if the government is trying to make them give away their wires to their competitors for free when that is not the case at all! Every CLEC pays the local telco for the use of their wires, and no one has ever suggested that they not.

This is not exactly true. With DSL, for example, a big issue is line sharing, where CLECs buy access the upper frequency portion of the local loop, the portion that is not used by telephone customers. Since TELRIC pricing applies, the ILECs (until recently) had to make that upper frequency portion of the loop available at their long term incremental cost. Since the CLECs were only buying a portion of a loop that had other purposes (providing voice), the long term cost for providing just that portion to the CLECs is essentially zero. So, the CLEC DSL providers were getting the upper frequency portion of the loop, the part that makes DSL possible, for free. --thczv

Your jesse ventura aren't you

[genner]

Who else made it in State Politics by beating people up.

More like the railroads have to carry others' cars

[garyebickford]

This is more like the railroads back in the 1800's. Railroads are now required to carry others' cars, in fact they pay rent for the cars on their track.

At one time there were hundreds of small railroads, many of which owned only a single line from PointA to PointB. Their anticompetitive tactics often included predatory pricing, delay of competitors' shipments and outright refusal to carry a competitor's engines or cars. Companies with a monopoly on routes important to others sometimes charged 10X the going rate, "because they could". For another example, railroads commonly charged farmers exorbitant rates to store and carry their grain because they had a local monopoly on storage and transportation.

According to this, this problem was the impetus for the original Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (ICA), and also the original Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. The latter act is also the basis of the federal actions against Microsoft, BTW. Some other interesting links are available here. This article briefly shows how the development of the railroad system beginning in the early 1800's was a major factor in creating the entire US legal structure we now take for granted, including racial integration, worker protection, eminent domain, elimination of 'blue laws', liability/tort law and public/private partnerships.

The ICA established the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which was responsible to set standard rates for railroad passage, and required every railroad to carry others' cars at a reasonable cost.

At present each railroad pays rent for each car that is recorded as being on its tracks to the car owner, but can use it to earn revenue from a shipper. Thus every railroad is motivated to get the car filled with something and send it off to another place, to either earn money with it or stop the rent accruing. Many cars are now owned by individuals or holding companies, who buy the car and send it out on the track in hopes of receiving rent.

Re:UWB over Cable might be an interesting solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Double the capacity of the CATV network without having to touch the cable infrastructure.

http://www.pulse-link.com/wire_current.html

Re:Telecommunication Act of 1996 ??

[Phil Karn]

The old AT&T -- The Bell System -- was fully regulated for many years, yet they still spent a lot of money on "upgrading the lines". They even poured a lot of money into basic research at Bell Labs. Remember who invented the transistor?

Properly done, regulation still provides plenty of incentives for the regulated company to expand and improve its business.

Is a regulated monopoly more efficient and innovative than a true, competitive free market economy? Of course not, but that's an apples-vs-oranges comparison. If there were true competition in the provision of local transmission to my house, we wouldn't need much (if any) regulation. But while the local telcos would like us to believe otherwise, we just don't have that kind of free-market competition, at least not yet. And until we can get it, regulation will be a necessary evil.

Re:Telecommunication Act of 1996 ??

[Phil Karn]

"Essentially zero"? How is that? Somebody has to route the lines through a filter and make the high-pass port available to the CLEC. It's certainly reasonable to let the telco recover that cost. The CLECs require space and power for their equipment. It's certainly reasonable to let the telco recover that cost.

What isn't reasonable is for a telco to charge wholesale prices to CLEC DSL providers that are higher than the retail prices for the telco's own DSL services, and/or to drag their feet in providing competitive access, yet this is exactly what the telcos routinely do. And they get away with it.