Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Ruling Points Way To Broadband Regulation

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the which-way-is-the-highway? dept.

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."

6 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. If the cable bandwidth is shared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared by fatman1683 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Look, defenseless babies!
  2. Always a downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. The downside of open access by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

  4. 10/100 over cable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  5. All well and good, but for infrastructure by konfoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.