Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Takes Broadband Regulation Case
Grotius writes "Reuters reported that the Supreme Court will hear a broadband regulation case that may determine whether FCC regulations apply to cable companies providing broadband services. This case is significant because the Court could determine that cable-based broadband is a 'telecommunications service' subject to FCC rules such as those requiring cable-companies to allow access to independent internet providers. The 9th Circuit has already held that FCC regulations apply to cable-companies providing broadband."
Do FCC regulations apply to my toaster?
I can't tell if this is good or bad- competition will help prices, but do we want the FCC involved?
Competition is good, but the FCC has shown that once it starts adding regulations, they don't know when to stop.
Then again, maybe they can get an 'Internet driver's license' regulation passed.
Q1: Do you want to buy a cheap Rolex?
A: Yes
Score: You failed. Please return your computer and cancel your AOL subscription.
IANAL, but would this not also invoke CALEA, the federal law requiring that "communications providers" provide accessibility to FBI and other law enforcement for wiretaps? Not only does this raise privacy concerns, but as this is an unfunded mandate, it also likely raises costs. It's a mixed bag (I would be happy to see competition come up, but in most states cable providers are a regulated monopoly and really don't gouge.) I know a lot of people have had trouble with cable providers, but I've used Comcast for quite some time now and been very happy. For the speed, the price is reasonable, and every time there's been a problem it's been fixed by the next day at the longest.
As I said, though, IANAL and I don't know about the CALEA issue. Does anyone know if a finding of common carrier would invoke this?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Breaking the Ma Bell was good for america, the arguement would hold water here as well. Smaller operators would face what DSL providers face now. Which is poor service that the Babybells pass the buck on, danger of upstream providers i.e. the cable companies sniping their customers like they phone companies do now with DSL customers. Eventual buy outs from the cable companies as the startups work out the bugs in new tech and then get bought up. Cycle of life stuff. All wonderful from my point of view.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I am all for requiring cable companies to let small companies buy into their system, but it should be at a fair market value. Seriously, the cable companies own the infrastructure and there are only two legitimate options: make them lease it out at cost with joint obligation to support the infrastructure or lease access at a fair market value with minimal obligation to support the infrastructure.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
They still own most of the infrastructure, but are forced to resell to other providers at almost unprofitable wholesale prices. But as a result, almost all the "new" providers sell the same plans - same price, same downloads... what's the point in that? I'd rather go for the big Telco as they're more likely to provide better service and be around in a year's time...
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!