Slashdot Mirror
Cable Internet Service Not Common Carrier
l2718 writes "The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with the Federal Communications Commission that cable Internet service is an 'information service' rather than a 'telecommunication service.' This means that cable companies don't have to make their infrastructure open for competing ISPs to use. This is in distinction to the case of telephone companies and long-distance service, for example. For more information try the Center for Digital Democracy or read the Telecommunications Act."
You can view the complete ruling in pdf here:
1 200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-277.p df
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun2005
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Cable providers also sell digital phone services over the same cable. Why then is this not a 'telecommunication service?' Phone companies investigated providing television style programming over the phone lines but the service proved too slow to carry the programming (DSL was born.)
Personally, I say hooray for the cable companies. They get to keep control of their equipment and the users who are utilizing it. Broadband and dial-up wholesale outfits generally provide poor service and limited capability (no Static IP or PPP Multilink.) Some of the outfits that have recently come (and gone) in this area went so far as to charge for tech support ($2/minute.) How tempting do you think it is for them to 'generate revenue' by causing issues on their own network.
"Numbers are down this month Bob, run that script that resets random passwords again."
"Lame" - Galaxar
The real problem here, and why the court was wrong, is that the cable system is a monopoly granted by the city. Only they are allowed to run cable to your home. As such, there is no true competition -- and we are screwed by it!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I use Earthlink as my ISP, but the lines and equipment all come from Time Warner--even my bill is printed on Time Warner paper and I make my cheque out to "Time Warner". The only difference is that Earthlink's service costs $10 less per month.
Does this mean my option to use anyone but Time Warner as a cable ISP will vanish?
...it forces the telcos (Baby Bells, etc.) to come out with competitive broadband offerings to more areas more quickly.
Since cable internet isn't a telecommunication service then I bet that the Voice over IP providers will favor cable. The E911 is mandated for voice lines and there have been a few state cases where internet phone providers have been sued. This ruling then (should in theory) alleviates the necessity of E911 for cable internet and lets the market decide if E911 is worth the cost. I just wonder if VOIP becomes widely used then will Cable Internet become re-classified as phone service?
Ah yes, the Center for Digital Deomcracy. . .
fine work they do, daily fighting the spread of Omcracy that has taken so many young lives and minds.
-nando
Aren't phone companies also information carriers?
does that mean now that they are not common cariers anymore they cant protect their customers from snooping **AA's i think i remeber someting along those lines that being a common carier made them free of that
I can see the case now for declaring cable internet lines to be informational services. But what about in 5-10 years when a substantial, if not majority, portion of telecommunication will occur over these cable lines? Can their purpose be reclassified? And not only will cable internet lines be home to VoIP and Internet... TV and movies on demand will also move to the internet domain. I'm not sure how long this decision will remain accurate.
This ruling is somewhat unfortunate. But at the same time, I'm a cable modem user by choice today since it's a fair bit cheaper (when you work out price:performance) for me than DSL would be, despite the expected advantages of competition in this space. I see ads all the time imploring me to switch to Qwest DSL or Speakeasy, but I've never found it to be the better option for my needs.
No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
Aside from any VoIP solutions provided by the cable companies, I wonder what this means for the likes of Vonage, Skype, et al?
By this same logic, your telephone company should be able to only let you dial into their own ISP -- and at whatever prices they decide to charge.
And regarding the court's other goof last week, if why not Free Speech also being regulated at the local level. If your local municipality doesn't like your speech, let them use eminent domain powers to take it away from you. Wouldn't that go over well?
Of course, since many of us have our Free Speech through the Internet (web-pages, blogs, message boards, and the like), we are being restricted in it by this ruling to a single provider, and whatever ToS rules they decide to impose.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They are on a roll today!
I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?
Is it unreasonable for me to be confused? Is a little consistency too much to ask here?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Aren't there a bunch of other privacy related issues with them being non-common-carriers/
Disclaimer: I'm a network engineer for a major cable company.
Everyone overlooks the major difference between phone and cable when saying cable should be opened up. That is (I'll prefix this with IN GENERAL, since there may be exceptions to this) cable systems were privately funded while phone systems used tax payer money. A second difference, although it will become less of one as cable telephony becomes more common is that phone is an utility service while cable is entertainment.
The cable companies can do whatever they want and I could still care less. The cable companies may have a monopoly on high speed internet via cable lines but that doesn't mean consumers don't have other options. In my city there is Cable, DSL and Wireless and judging by prices there is definitely competition. I personally don't use any of the services the local cable co provides and even had them remove their line from my house. I have been more than happy with DSL and Satellite.
For all telco law experts out there, what would it take for the telcos to refute their "common carrier" status? And lose/gain the same legal standing as the cable companies? Voice==data and data==voice so it seems like it owuld be an even playing field.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
There's a difference between a "communications service" and a "data service"?
But wouldn't you have to communicate data in order for it to appear? And wouldn't communications be meaningless without data to communicate?
Sometimes I wonder if it's the court that doesn't understand technology, or maybe its us technology guys that don't understand the courts. This ruling doesn't make any sense to me.
I actually kind of like that idea.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
Does that mean I'm stuck with this awful charter service for the next couple years at least? At least if I'm going to have this inconsistent service I should get a price drop..
They ruled on the Telecom *Act*. Congress can change the act with a majority vote and the signature of the president. Why wasn't there a Second Amendment ruling this term? Because the NRA is immenently capable of winning at the ballot box. Now ask yourself: In how many years will more people have broadband than guns? Organize, vote, and elect pro-competition politicians. We have the power.
...to pay for all that lobbying they had to do to keep competition out. (Not to mention hookers and blow for their victory parties.)Those bastards at Comcast will never get another dime from me. In less than 10 months, I was expected to take a 57% price increase, which included a $15.00/month penalty for NOT taking any additional services, when they bought out AT&T Broadband. They called it bundled pricing. I called it predatory pricing. It was actually a DirecTV penalty. I still have them, and I get by with 256k Qwest DSL.
Does this mean that cable companies are now excluded from VoIP "tappability", the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), or from the other law enforcement attempts to log EVERYTHING on the internet(s)?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
At least in helping big business. Let's see first they make it easier for big business to steal your property. Now they make sure that cable remains a monopoly.
You must have a better cable company than some of us do (or at least more faith in them). Because cable companies have monopolies granted by local government, consumers are at the mercy of the incumbent cable company in terms of service.
Take Adelphia (please!): In my neighborhood, the broadband choices are IDSL (144 kbps, $90/month), cable modem ($40-75/month) or satellite. If you want a static IP or more than 256 kbps upstream on the cable modem, it's $150/month for business class service. If Adelphia were obliged to share their lines, I rather suspect there would be better deals.
Living in the heart of northern Virginia's high-tech corridor, as I do, should give one more choices for broadband; I shudder to think what people elsewhere are locked into.
Since they have been labeled an information service rather than a telecommunications service, it means they can filter your traffic. I know for a fact that Time Warner (my cable service provider) sells IP phone Vonage type service, but charge a minimum of 39.99 a month for it. How long until that is the only VOIP service they allow on their networks and providers like Vonage suddenly "don't work" and "aren't supported by our service" Lunch
I have to pay 65 bucks a month for poor uptime, rotten downspeed, a joke of 128k upspeed and no hope for it getting better at the moment. All this ruling means is that Comcast has no competition in my area and no future chances of having a competitor. Don't think I am getting a ton of channels, extra's etc. Without comp, that is my base price, the absolute bottom of the barrel, for nothing but a net connection that is twice dialup and tests as 1.12 down. It may be time for a change of government, vote Libertarian, all the dems and reps do is blame it on each other and screw the little guy.
Today, so far, the Supremes have made a big ******* mess.
10 commandments
grokster
now this...
Im idling here waiting for the next one...
The government is allowed to take your house on behalf of a big corporation. But a corporation can't be required to request its monopoly infrastructure -- ON WHICH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS GIVEN IT A MONOPOLY -- at a fair price. At least the Supreme Court is being consistent. Corporations are getting everything they want, and John Q. Citizen can just go hang. The article cited above says that the court ruled that "judges should defer to the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission." But the FCC isn't any more expert than anyone else -- certainly not than the ISP that brought the case. And many inside it face political pressure to kowtow to (guess who?) the same big corporations. We're living in the New Gilded Age, folks. Corporations get whatever they want and the individaul loses. --Brett Glass
There might not be competition right now, however, in the next few years there will be. Satellite TV is already a direct competitor to TV for cable companies. And broadband access is in the same market as DSL right now. And when FIOS gets going it will be a direct competitor of both TV and broadband potentially offering more than cable could. I would not say life is all rosy at the cable companies.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
from the wired article http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,68008,00 .html?tw=rss.POL
"Judges should defer to the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission, which concluded that limited access is best for the industry, the high court said in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas."
which tottaly reminds me of the scene in the aviator when the big goverment peopel were like 1 airline is the best dont' need more than one!
So since it's an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service", does that mean the feds have just forfeited their right to perform surveillance on these networks? That would be neat.
Or is this just yet another situation where a win for libertarianism is a win for both big business and big government?
to your newsletter. But seriously, have you tried TrollTalk? Failing that, might I suggest going to Michigan and raping CmdrTaco?
How many times have the telcos been able to hide behind the "common carier" status when crimes are commited using their networks?
Will Cable ISPs have to now police their networks or be responsible for acts by their users?
Or maybe, just maybe, that's the idea and they are in cahoots with the media mafias?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Every time this sort of anti-competetive stuff occurs (99% of US cable markets are monopolies by license, aka local gov bribery), it makes me wonder if the various forms of wire infrastructure ought to be public property, just like the roads, water pipes, etc. Companies would be allowed to connect to them at cost. I can't help but think it would be win-win for everyone, except the monopoly owners and maybe Adam Smith purists.
Hmm...considering last week's supreme court ruling, perhaps the gov should just TAKE all the wires away from the companies by eminent domain. Infrastructure is about the only thing I consider a valid "public use".
Give me the link to TrollTalk. I am a troll refugee. And I need to be saved from the faggotry of the common slashdotter.
In fact SBC recently attempted to do just that. They filed a petition to the FCC for forbearance to title II. Jeff Pulver has covered the issue well in his blog...
Jeff Pulver's Blog on SBC Forbearance Petition
-= alphaFlight =-
Disclaimer: I'm a network engineer for a major cable company. I know this is /. but we can brings some facts to the table.
Monopoly: Cable is not a monopoly, (there may be some notable exceptions) there are areas where cable companies compete with each other. BUT you typically don't see this because it's simply unprofitable for them to do so. I know everybody thinks they should have cheap/free high speed internet service, but ALWAYS remember that a business has one primary purpose, to make money.
Building a cable network to support a single city requires MILLIONS of dollars. Building cable plant typically costs $7.00 per foot, this includes price for nodes, amps, cable, fiber, maintence, employees. Then you have your cost for content, headend equipment (upcoverters, CMTS, combiners, forward lasers, multiplexers, etc, etc, etc).
You better have a very solid business plan and know what you're doing if you plant compete with an established company and convince a city to open the right of way to you.
At least, for consumers in metropolitan areas. This is a big deal now, but as ISP's begin offering wireless access in metropolitan areas, there won't be a monopoly-controlled medium like the cable or telecomm infrastructure to wrestle over. Verizon is already doing this over their cellular network. It's not exactly the same, but it marks a move in that direction, IMO.
akad0nric0
This sentence no verb.
Does this ruling mean that there's nothing to prevent them from blocking access to VoIP services competing with their overpriced PSTN-over-cable offerings?
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
competitors might not have to be given access to cable networks, but perhaps municipalities could seize cable bandwidth for the purpose of providing high-speed internet...
Not common carrier, eh?
Well, here's the problem with this. Common carrier laws apply to telecommunications services. If Cable is not a telecommunications service, it's not a common carrier.
I strongly suggest someone sue charter, time warner, etc, for damages over the emotional trama the 'degrading' porn email they receive brings them. After all, that's why common carrier laws exist...
The cable co's may come to regret this.
I think (IANAL) this could render them liable for any "information" provided from their "service" -- from copyright violations to kiddy porn to libel. It's "common carrier" status that protects the phone company and other ISPs from this liability.
-- Alastair
For a low cost high speed network is to 'DUMP' the internet alltogether. I am serious.
.
We need to get rid of the telephone companies that control the backbone and local isp's.
We need Munis to be connected to one another with a new high speed network.
I believe the internet shouldn't be allowed to be run by corporate america just like the oil companies collude to control DC and the energy industry.
We need a new network to get rid of old standards that dont work like Email and put in new security
I support municipal broadband Fiber to the house -FTTH(google)or also FIOS. Not so much WiFi. Maybe WiMax.
For all telco law experts out there, what would it take for the telcos to refute their "common carrier" status?
Where I live they do it through being very slow and unresponsive for opening up ports to other carriers (or any other cooperation that is necessary to comply with the law). Most people like me will refuse to go too many months without phone service, and then just go back to the monopolistic one.
Been there, done that.
Why is it a worldwide conspiracy against people having a decently affordable means of communicating with people (aside internet, shouting, ham radio, etc)?
By my estimates, every American pays something like $50 to $80 or more a month for the privilege to use the phone ("long" distance gets even more interesting). I pay $40 a month for complete worldwide access to the internet that can even do telephone via VOIP. I currently pay something like $17 a month just on fees and taxes to have a dialtone to my house. I would have to pay another fee just for the privilege to dial more than 30 or 40 miles from my house, even if I don't use it.
Oh. Its those people that consider their phone conversations and giggles with their friends more important than paying attention to what they are doing while driving. Gotcha.
Well, we are making progress. I can buy a phone instead of leasing one every month. Now that was a slick scam.
The mutually exclusive definitions of "telecommunications" vs "info" services in the law the Court interpreted is a bad model of the technology. Unfortunately, Congress and the Court is collectively so ignorant of technology, and immune to the damage their reality-disconnected decisions make, that they won't face that reality. And of course that guy in the White House doesn't know anything about anything at all, except that he's popular - why should he do anything about it, when he has no problem with his phone bill?
--
make install -not war
I think this is a good idea. Cable companies are not like phone companies (aka DSL providers) in the U.S. The telephone companies were government imposed monopolies. They built their networks under the premise that they would have exclusive service rights for a long time. Because entry costs are so much higher than maintenance costs, they have little to fear from traditional startups since no one will waste the startup capital on laying phone lines.
Cable companies, on the other hand, built their networks in a competitive environment. Yes, there are things like local franchise agreements but the ones I've seen (Florida, mostly) aren't prohibitively expensive or exclusive. I have seen a lot of little, local cable providers that service just a subdivision or a few blocks.
The cable companies didn't have government imposed monopolies to assist them in getting going. If you don't like your options in cable, you can either get a satellite or start your own micro-cable company.
Since the biggest cost in delivering cable television and telephone services is the "last mile" -- running & servicing the cables -- this could provide a major boost to the wireless entrepeneur or small business. If the cable companies start jacking up internet access prices, a demand will be created for an alternative. Where a demand exists, a supply will be found.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
How will this ruling bear upon Verizon's expanding fiber-optic network? Will another case have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, or will Fios be designated as an "information service" or a "telecommuncation service?"
If the cable companies are not common carriers, doesn't that make them responsible for all of the content flowing across their lines?
Does that mean that the cable companies can now be sued for P2P music downloading? How about criminal charges for kiddie porn?
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
Great! Now that Cable is officially an "information service" (today's ruling) and Internet is an "information service"(FCC 96-488). Then previous rulings regarding ISPs accessing channels via leased access should be overturned.
I quote from the FCC website http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html:
"Channel set-aside requirements were established in proportion to a system's total activated channel capacity, in order to 'assure that the widest possible diversity of information sources are made available to the public from cable systems in a manner consistent with the growth and development of cable systems.'"
A company called IVI tried this before around the same time. It fell on the FCC's ears with a resounding thud. One comment I remember is that they did not, at the time, consider the Internet an information service.
Cable companies are tiny municipal monopolies. The FCC has found in the past that they try to lock out competition so they established the framework required promote that competition. Why don't they use it?
Considering the cable companies are in fact part of greater media conglomerates, I don't think they care. They WANT to have this kind of control over the content they have on their network, and this ruling in this area is in fact to their advantage, not disadvantage.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Take care to read Justice Scalia's Dissent. In it, he shows a good understanding of how internet service works and what this means legally.
His point is that the cable companies are prodviding two services:
- communications from your home to their ISP facility.
- their ISP facility connects you to the rest of the Internet.
The second is an "information service" under the law. The first is a "telecommunication service". The cable company is bundling them together exactly to get around the regulations by claiming that the joint offering is an "information service", but they shouldn't be allowed to play such shenannigans.The first line in the above post should have read:
"Consumer WISPs have yet to establish... "
Yes, I am aware of Speakeasy (and others) business-oriented offerings. However, considering they are charging $500/month for what is essentially a service they sell for $50 over DSL (3 MB/s, which is granted configurable any way you please), this is essentially T-1 carrier-grade prices.
So you are saying that I can tele-commute with either my telecommunications service or my information service. Last time I tried tele-commuting with just a telephone it didn't work and I got fired.
Isn't the Washington Post an information service? When was the last time Comcast gave me any information, huh. Maybe CNN gave me information but not Comcast.
1. Upside is that this will limit the numbers of cable internet customers and keep the bandwidth more open for those using it.... important since cable connections slow way down during peak hours when everyone is on it. 2. Downside is that cable is only run to places with a large enough potential customer base to make it economical to run all the cable... so if you are out in a rural area, you aint getting the cable connection option. Then again, see #1. I've been running cable for the last 6 months and I have grown to love it. A lot. Unfortunately I just picked up a house out in the sticks and we are moving in a week... cable is out of the question. For this, I am not pleased. DSL is the only option, and the carrier out here, UBET, is pathetic and corrupt.
MadOgre.com
How does Internet phone service weigh into this?
All they need is real-time human (_not_ machine)
monitoring of all traffic going over their network at all times. And in all languages.
Reasonable enough, as long as they don't outsource the work, sice having furriners monitoring comunications in furrin languages is a security risk.
I am on dsl so this ruling doesn't affect me immediately. The distinction the supreme court seemed to be making was between information service providers and common carriers. But as this link indicates http://news.zdnet.com/2100-6005_22-5764187.html The FCC is trying to define phone companies as information service providers too. That will suck. The only choices will be cable, the phone company and satellite.
Why should an ISP only want access to the cable system? Just make a case that if you're given the cable system, you'll open it up and generate much more revenue, then have the government seize it for you using the [stupid] eminent domain decision from last week.
Since they are not considered a common carrier, are they going to be held responsible for the content, including copyright issues, indecency issues, etc? This could have some interesting ramifications like forcing them to prove beyond doubt that a customer was responsible for content, instead of being able to finger-point as soon as the RIAA/MPAA come knocking.
The Supreme Court is being very (small c) conservative these days.
Best Slashdot Co
This is one of those rulings that will have a number of unintended consequences. There are some practical ramifications of not being common carrier (mostly, it will ultimately mean a lower grade of service and high consumer costs for cable service), but the court didn't end there.
Their conclusion was that cable internet and phone service wasn't a telecommunication service under the law. Economic issues aside, this is interesting from the standpoint of taxation (the argument that a web-based site is a mail-order busines by virtue of conducting business over the phone and thus subject to state sales tax, for instance). How about E991 -- it no longer applies to cable companies because their service is not phone service or even telecommunication service. Cable companies wouldn't need to feign neutrality on site access either -- preferred content providers get bandwidth, where others get none, etc.
In the short term, I'm sure this is considered a win for the cable companies, but I suspect in the end it will sink them.
'Imminent-Domain'
Sooooo I say:
For the economic *betterment* of our communities..
In the spirit of *Capitalism*..
And a larger *tax* base..
That we *STORM* the Cable Companies with torches & clubs and take *our* land back!! :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
The majority opinion, based on reports, seems to say "we don't have expertise. We defer to other governmental organization."
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
If that means the cable company does not have that status and legal protection, will they have to do filtering, etc. for possible illegal content or risk a lawsuit?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"Center for Digital Deomcracy"
Is that supposed to be "deocracy", the faithbased government? Which asks us to trust in the "character" of the people who select, say, digital voting machines without paper trails, owned by the ruling party's corporate bribers^Wdonors? Which says "separation of church and state" and "consistently applied principle" means that Scalia gets to decide whether a religious display promotes his religion "too much" or whether it's some kind of "cult" like Islam that the government shouldn't establish, because it didn't kill enough Indians.
--
make install -not war
Since cable companies are not to be considered common carriers for their internet access services, they could now proceed to block ports used for VOIP by other providers. That is, if you want VOIP, you can only get it from the cable company. The reason I say that is that in previous cases of port blocking the FCC have used the common carrier provisions to get some ISPs (that happen to be part of traditional common carriers like telcos) make them desist of their port blocking practices.
New laws are needed to bring some sanity to this.
7 versus 3 digits...you know...it's not that hard. My phone even has emergency buttons on it! Big red ones that I pre-programmed. I only have to press ONE BUTTON now.
911 is for retards.
Blar.
This ruling has as much logic as this hair-brained courts other recent finding that pot grown and used locally is "interstate Commerce".
This is a political court, not a court of law.
Both cable and telephone systems have enjoyed a merchantilist "mandated monopoly" status in most of the country. The same reasonings were made in both cases, that market competition would make profit margins so low that service would not be rolled out for marginal customers. Same for "rural electrification" and lots of other services. Profits were, and are, legally mandated to occur regardless of the desirability of the services offered.
The ruling is a contradiction, because the cable companies continue to enjoy legal monopoly status. Their only competition in the wired IP field is in fact the phone companies, with VoIP and DSL bringing the two systems closer together in functionality every day.
Don't get me wrong, I utterly oppose anyone mandating that I provide my infrastructure to other people whether I like it or not. What I loath is the hypocrisy involved.
Now we have another judicial fiat defining differences in how they are allowed and/or required to do their business. Instead of competition driving prices down and service quality up, the companies are being limited to someone else's ideas of what they should be.
You're right that the two systems have never been regulated exactly the same. The problem is that they are regulated. As with every merchantilist scheme, we the customers are the losers.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
One possible outcome of this is that it means the rule that your ISP is not resposible for filtering content might not apply to cablemodem service anymore.
One consequence of being a "common carrier" is that the common carrier company is not legally responsible for having to know what kind of content they are sending around. If someone uses their service to speak a slanderous comment, the communication provider can't be held legally responsible for spreading that slander. If someone uses a telephone to make a prank call, you can't sue the phone company for the offensiveness of that call. These are all consequences of being called a common carrier. The definition includes an absolution of all blame for the content being carried - the blame lays only with the people at the ends of the connection, not the people carrying the connection.
Now, if that goes away for cable ISPs, that could mean they have to start censoring to cover their own ass, legally.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If they are not common carriers, they are screwed.
Common carriers are not held liable for the communications of their users. Informations services, whatever the hell those are, may be.
Since they are ISP's, that means that some ISPs now may have to actively police what you are doing online, in case you are violating some law. Wait for it. They have just entered hell -- or WE have.
Maybe my memory is getting a little faulty, but IIRC, wasn't the protection of the ISPs from getting sued by everyone in Utah for carrying porn that they were a 'common carrier' and not liable for what went over their lines?
Does this rescind their status as a common carrier? If so, how long until every bible-thumper and Save-The-Children organization starts sueing every ISP for not blocking porn/drugs/terrorists/flavour-of-the-week?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Right decision for today, but unfortunately it doesn't correct a HUGE mistake make years ago by local governments. The only reason this is a problem is because cable companies are government mandated monopolies. The government owned the roads and thus decided that only one cable company could own the lines. So companies bid for the exclusive monopolistic privilege of being the sole cable company in your town. Today, even where you legally have the right to choose another company, you are not able too because the governmetn put in barriers to competition years ago.
This wasn't the feds or even the states. This was your local city council. Yes, the same petty tyrants that worship at the alter of eminent domain, are the same petty tyrants that foisted this monopoly on you. We're definitely in a mess now, but the solution isn't to layer another level of government on the problem. We got rid of the telco monopoly with new technology (cell phones), and we're going to have to do the same with cable (satellite, wifi, etc).
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
So the cablecos get to maintain their monopolies and provide substandard service. Lovely. I recently had to spend more money (for less bandwidth!) to go to a "business class" cable line b/c the local ISP blocks inbound http, smtp, etc by default and refused to remove the blocks. At least it was an option, but if I had a choice of which company to go to, they'd be getting the boot.
Can't be good common carrier status is why newsgroups have made it so long at least according to this forum post http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s= &threadid=1595212&highlight=newsgroup
Will this mean I will be changing ISP's (again)? TimeWarnerCable owns Roadrunner, but I use Earthlink. So this is goodbye Earthlink and hello Roadrunner (again)... Great, more overhead because of new accounts being created, paperwork generated, tech calls place, etc. This is sure to keep my broadband monthly bills nice and low.
If cable is an information service then I guess I am not obligated to exchange any TCP/IP traffic directly with any of its end user customers. I'll start with port 25 and put an end to the bulk of the zombie spam.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
No, what I meant was - if someone really thought they could do something original and valuable enough with the bandwidth and general technoligies cable providers use, they could indeed lay new cable and give it a shot. The Supreme Court ruling shoudn't affect that, unless I'm misunderstanding something about it?
EG. Someone might figure it's not worth the risk to try to be "just another cable competitor peddling the same sets of movie channels to people" - but they might want to try it in the form of "cheaper, faster, better broadband with VoIP service", or maybe they'd do it offering something completely new that we haven't considered yet?
The conclusion may have interesting implications for municipal broadband initiatives - if the cable company is not obligated as a public utility, what can it do to stop cities from offering their own services? Cities or utilities are in charge of water lines and electricity and phones - services (or access to services) a household must be granted. To some extent the ruling pulls cable out of that arena and makes Internet access an "extra service", one that a company would not be obligated to provide a household. That could potentially hold back widespread deployment of broadband, especially to rural areas.
/me Shrugged
That they dont have the *protection* of common carrier status in regards to traffic..
The feds can demand traffic logs, sniffing, etc as they please.
Score another negative for the public.. The court is on a roll this month..
Man this sux..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First off, I think this a horrible decision. Soon enough, telecom vs cable wont mean anything at all. Everything will be IP anyway.
So my question is...
What is to keep the Bells from claiming the same status? Could they do so based on the fact that they offer DSL? Would they need to also offer TV over IP? This could be bad for smaller phone companies as well as smaller ISPs if this is the case.
This ruling will spur investment in the industry. Good for future quality and performance.
--
l'obscurite
Seduction Home
In that case, Cable provision is a natural monopoly and there is nothing to be gained by having it run by a private company (the theory of capitalism being based on competition), so it should be taken under public ownership.
What about the argument that even natural monopolies will operate more efficiently if there is pressure from the shareholders to keep costs down (in order to increase the size of dividends paid to shareholders) ?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
If the cable Internet companies are not "Common Carriers" do they lose the common carrier exemptions in the laws? Can we now go after them for the damages caused by the machines they host on their "information services"?
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
My question is, then why does my FCC taxes go up when I add DSL into my services? I'm almost to a point where intellectually I want to say "Fuck Cable". The line is expensive and programming is totally raping you in the wallet. All of these services have gotten cut throat and we lose everytime.
Phone, Cable, Satellite - all three dominate the advertising space, all three lie about one of the others to get their products sold. None of their lies are true. DSL *is* cheaper than cable, and the connection in my experience is the same when living where both are wired early in often. DSL requires you to purchase service with an ISP, cable doesn't. Your DSL's phone line makes you pay long distance, cable doesn't. Satellite *has* to make it's 'broadcast' digital yet their HDTV signal isn't as high as it could be (on certain channels) - they say cable isn't 100% digital - doesn't matter because 80-90% of the televisions aren't digital, high definition televisions - and not all the satellite and cable channels are HDTV either (of course).
Really, my cable and phone companies offer the same services except programming over the "phone line". A pure satellite phone is far off due to latency - but they are transmitting data. Why are you telling me they are different? It is because the medium... the protocols involved in establishing a connection and transmitting the data? You are taxing just the POTS way of doing it?
This is ridiculous, how can you tax a protocol? Not to mention this taxing has created a favorable status among government.
Get your Unix fortune now!
The reason Governments like violent protests is because they'll win. The reason they don't like civil disobedience (especially if financial) is because they'll lose.
Ergo, it is essential that we retain as far as is humanly possible those methods that will work, whilst they still work. When it becomes impossible for the general public to win a protest, the Government won't care that the protests are violent - largely because they'll be safe and it'll be the public that's hurt.
(Most riots harm the rioters and the public far more than the Government. Most violent crime does, too, which is why the British Government didn't give a damn about kids being blown up by the IRA in Warrington, but started peace negotiations the moment businesses were targetted in London and Manchester.)
The student rent strike (the only effective weapon students have against abuses of power by Universities) is also under threat. Maybe Britain has to pull a mass walk-out, to demand that these forms of protest are protected.
Of course, even that might be tough in Britain, these days. The Criminal Justice Act banned more than four people travelling together with a common purpose, and it would be entirely imaginable for the Government to claim that "travel" can include political and social journeys as well as physical ones.
America, I fear, is beyond the point where such cohesion is possible, but Britain may still have a chance.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
the cost savings will be passed on to the shareholders in the form of profit rather than on to the consumer in the form of reduced charges.
Hey, at least the savings are getting passed on to somebody -- as opposed to never being realized at all.
I once worked for a private company that had a manager for every two useful people...
I don't doubt your anecdotal story, but it doesn't detract from the fact that in general, private enterprises tend to be run more efficiently than government enterprises.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I would swallow the monopoly argument if they actually had one. In many places there might only be one cable company (two in my town though). If you decide you don't want to deal with the cable company, you might be shit out of luck as far as cable goes. However, cable is just a medium. A cable is no good to anyone, it is what comes through the cable that is important. When it comes to what comes through the cable, there is no monopoly. You have tons of choice - the most obvious being dish services. You also have some competing options in that general type of entertainment, namely DvDs from Blockbuster or Netflicks. PCs also compete with the TV for eyeballs (very effectively I might add).
It is like Pepsi. Pepsi has a monopoly on selling Pepsi. If Pepsi is what you crave, you can only get it from Pepsi. However, you can also get something similar to Pepsi by buying a Coke. If caffeine is what you are after then you can also buy coffee, tea, espresso, or Jolt gum (I love that stuff). If you narrow your view enough every company has a 'monopoly'. It really is the bigger picture that matters though. When it comes to feeding specifically cable programming entertainment, you have a lot of options due to dishes. If you broaden 'cable programming' to 'visual media', then your options explode. If your cable company is giving you a hard time, just ditch the bastard. There are plenty of alternatives.
Cable companies, even in areas where there is only one, absolutely do not have a monopoly. If you want cable stations, but not the cable company, buy a Dish. There are at least a dozen dish providers these days (if not more). There is also Netflixs, Blockbuster, or you can just buy a DvD if you don't mind changing what types of programs you get a little (and even then, most TV shows have DvDs). Finally, if you are willing to broaden even a little more and just want entertainment... well, that thing you are staring at right now is doing a good job at keeping your eyes off the TV right now. PCs have eaten into TV like nothing else.
Whatever the case, cable companies have a natural monopoly on laying cables. If those cables were the only way into your house, I would agree there is a natural monopoly. Seeing as how there a dozen other ways to get the exact same content, I think it is safe to say that they have no more of a monopoly then Pepsi has. Sure, only Pepsi sells Pepsi... but you could always by a Coke or a Root Beer instead. Narrow your definition of a product enough and every company has a 'monopoly' on their specific product and brand name. What really is important is the broader view. If you want HBO, NBC, Comedy Channel, or broadband, are there other options beside cable? Absolutely.
Scalia indicates that he doesn't see why cable modems and DSL should be treated differently (and he also thinks that DNS has some reason to be tied to your ISP, though he somewhat gets that email and web service are distinct from internet service, which the Portland case didn't get.) But they're fundamentally different services - Cable is IP, DSL isn't.
DSL is really ATM underneath, providing a Layer 2 point-to-point virtual circuit between two devices, and any IP services are provided by the endpoints. So if the telco is providing the DSLAM (as opposed to renting dry copper wires to a CLEC like Covad and renting cage space in the telco wire center for the CLEC's DSLAM), they can support any ISP that wants to either buy a private line to their wire center or else buy an ATM pipe to terminate the virtual circuit on, and it's the ISP's job to provide a router that terminates the Layer 2 virtual circuit and connects to the Internet and optional services like email. In some cases, the telco also provides internet service, or does co-branding partnerships like SBC Yahoo; in other cases the telco only sells to ISPs and doesn't do their own. Also, the telco can either sell the DSL connection to the end user, putting it on their telco bill, or the telco can sell it to the ISP, who bundles it with Internet service and bills the end user.
Cable modem is different - it's an IP technology, which is inherently open unless you try hard to make it closed. It's Ethernet-like shared cables at the bottom, and the right architecture is to provide IP routing from the head end on up, connecting to other ISPs at a few regional peering locations. There's normally no good technical reason for an ISP to put connectivity into each head end office, though they might make a deal for some really special application; connecting at the peering points is almost always the right choice, though that connection might just be a data pipe or it might involve colocating some servers at the cable company's bigger data centers. That's not always how it's implemented - some cable companies use annoying and stupid protocols like PPPoE to gain a bit more control over the user, and do various filtering things to limit their usage.
The ISP coalition that argued so-called "cable openness" in the Portland case and before was really trying to argue for *closing* the cable service and giving themselves special access. The biggest problem was that by buying Internet service from the cable company, the customer feels like he's a customer of the cable company and should get services like email from them along with his Pay-Per-View movies, and the ISPs hadn't figured out how to reinvent themselves as Email and Web service providers rather than bundled-package providers. The real things that would constitute an "open" cable service and still let the ISPs make money would look something like:
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks