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."
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Competing companies can sell services on the infrastructure if they like, but not access itself.
This would also lower the barrier of entry right down to the little local companies.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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".
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
Actually, you can't do that. The reason: Everyone who was rich enough would be tearing up the streets. That's why the cities give them (the cable companies) the monopolies: the streets are only torn up once (these days it's then they're laid down) and in return the cable companies gets to have a monopoly.
Personally, I think that the government should buy up the cable AND phone line networks, and let any company capable have service on it, but that's my "let everyone be equal" stance.
. Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
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"
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.