Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cable Internet Service Not Common Carrier

Posted by Hemos on from the the-battle-wages-on dept.

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."

8 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. The Real Problem Here by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:The Real Problem Here by jratcliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except for a VERY small number of cases (mostly subdivisions), cable is _not_ a monopoly by law. For the vast majority of local cable franchises, the franchise agreement is explicitly NOT exclusive - other providers are welcome to build networks and offer service. The problem is, nobody wants to. The economics of the cable business are such that, one provider will make good money - add a second provider, and both lose money. You need at least 40+% penetration of homes to justify the costs of building the network, and a secondary provider is highly unlikely to capture that many customers.

    2. Re:The Real Problem Here by ThosLives · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Seeking an audience with God Himself is much easier, actually.

      (Apologies if someone else beat me to this observation).

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    3. Re:The Real Problem Here by FauxPasIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > But how do you guarentee quality when the government owns the network?

      Vote. Failing that, run for office.
      Now, how do you guarantee quality when the network is controlled by a closed boardroom at one corporation?

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
  2. Re:Let them keep their network! by IAmTheDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Besides the parent's thoughts, let's not forget that this supports the idea that VOIP is in fact not V. That is, with this ruling, anything that travels over broadband is information and not telecommunications, so it supports keeping federal regulations of VOIP off of VOIP providers.

    --
    Excuse my speling.
    Making The Bar Project
  3. Ok. So I'm confused by DanielMarkham · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Let them keep their network! by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This ruling doesn't change anything. It states that cable companies don't have to open their lines to competitors, which is the way things are right now. Service won't get worse because of this ruling, and I really don't think it would get better had they ruled the other way. Look at how well "competitive" DSL worked, or more like didn't work. Hardly anyone can sell DSL other than the local telecom monopoly since they have priced competitors out of the market even if they do allow access to their lines. The only way broadband will be truly competitive is when wireless broadband over a large area is widely available and affordable, and not surprisingly the phone and cable companies are trying very hard to prevent this.

  5. Many unintended consequences.... by FellowConspirator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.