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."

Comments

Complete Ruling Online; Read for Yourself

[WebHostingGuy]

You can view the complete ruling in pdf here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051 200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-277.p df

Re:Complete Ruling Online; Read for Yourself

[prgrmr]

"Fair" is not outcome-based; "fair" is an equal application of a known set of rules. Cable infrastructure has never been regulated in the same manner as telephone infrastructure. This ruling continues that seperation of regulation, despite the growing overlap in functional use.

Re:Complete Ruling Online; Read for Yourself

[X0563511]

Not when you consider they no longer have common carrier protection when it comes to things like illegal content flying around on their network. Now they have to spend the money and blood actually trying to stop that. And if the measures against it get too obtrusive, they will loose customers.

** Did not read the ruling... assuming the protections went away with the status

Let them keep their network!

[Crudely_Indecent]

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."

Re:Let them keep their network!

[Leroy_Brown242]

" Cable providers also sell digital phone services over the same cable. Why then is this not a 'telecommunication service?'"

maybe because that is not their primary function?

Re:Let them keep their network!

[IAmTheDave]

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.

Re:Let them keep their network!

[l2718]

Cable providers also sell digital phone services over the same cable. Why then is this not a 'telecommunication service?'

In fact, there have been recent court rulings that internet telephony is a telecommunicaiton device, and subject to FCC regulation. For example, this has been used to force VoIP to include 911 service. However, just because the VoIP part is a regulated service doesn't mean that the underlying infrastrcture is -- that depends on the definitions in the telecommuncations act, which the FCC is in charge of interpreting. The supreme court decided that their interpretation is not unreasonable and therefore due deference from the judicial branch.

Re:Let them keep their network!

[plehmuffin]

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.)

I'm glad you think so highly of the cable companies internet services, because you can expect them to get worse due to this ruling. Before, they had to compete with those independant ISPs, now they don't because they can just shut them down. Do you think the cable companies internet service will become better with less competition?

Also, you're painting some pretty broad strokes on the range of independant ISPs. Many of the ones I've had in the past had much better service than did the cable and phone companies offerings, across the board. I'll admit that the later businesses have improved by leaps and bounds as of late, which is why I get my internet directly from the cable company. But they did so because they were losing customers to the independants. This development is definitely bad for the consumer.

Re:Let them keep their network!

[pete6677]

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.

Re:Let them keep their network!

[pr0nbot]

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.

Pesky regulations such as that dialling 911 works.

Re:Let them keep their network!

[Little Pink Bunny]

Personally, I say hooray for the cable companies. They get to keep control of their equipment and the users who are utilizing it.

I don't know a lot about the subject, so please enlighten me if you do. I know that we, the taxpayers, basically paid for phone lines to be run to each house (regardless of how SBC et al stamp their little feet and scream "my copper! Mine!"). Is it common for taxpayers to have subsidized cable rollouts, or were they typically paid for by the cable companies and/or their customers?

The answer to that question completely governs my eventual opinion on the subject. If they bought and paid for their own network, then more power to 'em. If I paid for it, though, I expect to have some say in how they allow other companies to access it.

Anybody know how this works out?

Re:Let them keep their network!

[DreadfulGrape]

re: Anybody know how this works out?

Yes indeed. It is not common at all for taxpayers to subsidize a cable system rollout; in fact I don't know of any place where that's actually happened. At most, the local community or county might give them a one-time tax-break of some kind or another.

Here's the big difference -- if I build a house out in the middle of complete bumfuck and I want phone service, the phone company must run a line to my house. Seriously, it's the law. That's why you pay a "rural exchange carrier" tax on your phone bill, and have been since waaayyy back in the 20th century...

Many, many years ago, the FCC ruled that Ma Bell was a public utility, and had a certain of obligations thereby. That's what meant by "common carrier," a definition SCOTUS has ruled (correctly, I might add) doesn't apply to the cable industry.

So you have your phone out in east bumfuck now, and you call the cable company. They say "Sorry, we don't provide service where you live." That's it. End of conversation. They don't have to provide you with service, and nobody can make them.

That's why cable is not a "common carrier." How they themselves go upstream to the internet cloud is irrelevent (in reply to someone else's earlier comment). They own, really own, all the cable (or fiber, or whatever) that extends to your property line. So they don't have to open up their network to any 3rd party.

I'm not making a judgement here as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. I don't own any cable or telecomm stock; if I did I might actually give a damn. But in this case the Supremes interpreted the law correctly, as it exists right now. Indeed, it was probably the only correct decision the court handed down today (just my opinion, of course...).

-- DG

The Real Problem Here

[Nom du Keyboard]

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!

Re:The Real Problem Here

[91degrees]

I don't think the court was wrong. I think this is a different problem. As a granted monopoly, the cities should have insisted several requirements were met, including allowing other services to lease bandwidth.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[jratcliffe]

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.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[Pentavirate]

If it's so much more profitable for cable companies to lock themselves into the ISP role for their networks, I wonder why Time-Warner allows Earthlink as an ISP on their network here in San Diego along with their own offering of Road Runner? Earthlink is even cheaper.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[ThosLives]

Seeking an audience with God Himself is much easier, actually.

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

Re:The Real Problem Here

[cdwiegand]

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.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[voodoo_bluesman]

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

What if one company needs more bandwidth than is available, or wishes to offer services over the network that don't mesh well with the government's infrastructure?

Is it the tax payer's responsibility to support their needs?

Re:The Real Problem Here

[FauxPasIII]

> 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?

Re:The Real Problem Here

[nine-times]

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.

I think this is a compelling idea. I don't know enough to know if it would work well, but I could see an argument that communication lines are comparable to roads. You could still have the ISPs handing things like hosting, dns, dhcp, setup and support, without them being the group that actually lays down the lines.

Considering we're moving more and more toward having one network which provides all telecommunication (telephone, television, and internet on one line), I find it increasingly disturbing to imagine only one company (or only a couple) having a monopoly over how that network works.

I don't really want the government controlling my internet/tv/telephone network either, but I wonder if that would be a good compromise: the government lays down high-speed lines, and you get to choose a service provider who uses those lines.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[mugnyte]

"Everybody can run their own wires if they want to offer service" ??

I'm like to see your model extended to power and water. "everybody gets the chance to install" doesn't make much sense. The only concept your free-for-all has going for it is the lower impact of running wires on poles, than in digging for pipes and rigging transformers for power.

You may be surprised at this, but by removing the burden of maintaining the infrastructure, companies often excel at the service level. They pay only a fraction of the physical cost, since the market shares the burden, and they strive to offer more innovative value-added concepts to the service level. Phone companies demonstrate this, but so does the new availability of sat. radio, wireless ethernet, etc. The infrastructure commoditizes, so "what else you got?" comes out of the consumers mouths.

Also, the maintenance of said infrastructure can be sub-contracted out through bid and term-contracts by area. If standards of performance are not kept, a new vendor is selected to run the show for the term. I call this a more even balance. It doesn't remove the (existing) potential of cronyism and abuse, but it fragments the market based on specialization of service (wires/electricity/physical versus routing/bandwidth/add-ons). This is a similar model to that proposed to run public schools in many places.

Markets already naturally fragment in this fashion, where a new competitor springs up that "only does X, so we're cheaper". In the power industry, I write software to track accountability between users of shared infrastructure (lines). Not only does this model work, but the cost of your power depends on it.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[suitepotato]

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.

Patent nonsense. There are places in CT where as many as THREE cable systems are built on top of each other.

The SBC/SNET Americast system was overbuilt on top of the local cable systems and shortly thereafter shut down after SBC decided they were telecom primmadonnas and not "cable guys". Their infrastructure going to rot on the poles, competitors petitioned to open it to competition and the state regulators ruled against SBC, saying that the lines had to be either used or sold/leased to competitors. This is not incompatible with the SCOTUS ruling as they did not necessarily have to open up their system if they actually used it. They just weren't being allowed by regulators to squat on utility right of ways and let the system go to pot.

Another company overbuilt a good amount of West Hartford, CT and provides (provided?) high speed Internet access over that system.

The problem is that there is no money in overbuilding. Existing cable operators have made incremental ongoing investments in their systems for decades and putting in a brand new system from head end to local hubs to fiber and nodes to actives and passives, etc., can cost billions in just a few cities.

For those companies which have overbuilt like RCN and so forth, there's plenty of argument as to what their focus should be. For instance, so-called "deep fiber" is generally believed to be more of an endeavor for overbuilders than incumbents.

However, it is patently false to say there's a monopoly. You're definining it like people define Microsoft's. It isn't the cable company's fault that people look at the cost of doing in one shot what they've (the cable companies) taken decades to build up as being prohibitively expensive and decide not to do it. It's not Cox or Charter's fault that these ISPs haven't banded together to create their own corporation to overbuild and get into the game.

Also, the economics of cable service are brutal. The work force is large, the work is constant, the content providers are cutthroat and their stuff growing more expensive yearly, the profit margin thinner that people think, because they generally only see the cost of their bill and not what the cable company is paying to thousands of employees, material and equipment suppliers, local/state/federal taxes and fees, content provider fees, etc., ad nauseam.

In my book, these ISPs want all the bandwidth and none of the expense of keeping it up. If a cable company tallied up all the expenses that should be charged to an ISP using their lines, they'd find that they'd end up charging about the same as the cable company. And since my cable company has a better and bigger backhaul than any local ISP (OC-3s and OC-12s and more compared to at most a DS-3), never mind more resources for e-mail and so on, I have zero reason to want a competitor ISP on my cable company's lines.

It's a matter of economics and the people who want all that access over night don't have the money independently and won't make the effort collectively, to build a system that the cable company certainly didn't create overnight, nor do they show the money or inclination to be on the same level as the cable ISPs in terms of committing resources and effort and being in it for the long haul.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[Olathe]

There is a huge problem with your argument. You focus, like a lot of people, way too much on the methods of doing something. They rarely matter.

Even if cable services are a natural monopoly, it doesn't matter. People do not want cable services. They want television programming and high-capacity Internet connections. There is no monopoly, natural or otherwise, in providing those (note DSL, satellite, home-grown wireless networks).

Even more important: if you think cable is a monopoly now, just wait until it's a "public" one. For a case study on that, look at letter delivery in the United States. The USPS is forced on people not because competition is impossible, but because it's outlawed.

Every government service moves unstoppably toward inefficiency and customer maltreatment. "Public" "servants" have no incentives to do well. The only known means of reliably providing such incentives is competition. Governments make sure they don't have it.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[0111 1110]

The problem is that there is no money in overbuilding.

Tell that to RCN. Not only did they add their own cables to the existing ones in the Boston area, but they added their own phone lines as well. They decided to compete with two existing 'monopolies'. They seem to be doing well as far as I can tell. In the Boston area we have 3 broadband ISPs: RCN, Comcast, and Verizon. Both RCN and Verizon offer local telephone service as well. Whether that has reduced prices is another question of course. It definitely adds some real competition though. I recently told RCN that I was going to switch to Comcast and they responded by upgrading my cable modem config file to allow for (theoretical) higher download speeds. I remember when RCN first started building around here. I liked how it seemed to directly contradict my old microeconomics professor about so called 'natural' monopolies. Someone at RCN decided to try the 'impossible'.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[museumpeace]

You haven't been around very long have you?

The US is a pretty right-of-center place in terms of what infrastructure we generally agree the govt should provide: these days its pretty much roads and dams, period. A handful of east coast cities and the Bay area think [though less and less] there should be public transportation. the govt is in the midst of a 2 decade retreat from even regulating, prefering the break-up of monopolies and deregulation to let magic market forces enforce fair and efficient distribution of services in air travel, rail [you think AmTrak is for real?] and telecommunications. So politically speaking you talk about a move THIS COUNTRY is heading away from faster with each passing year and would never make.
Technologically its an even dumber idea. The europeans have been decades getting out from under the legacy of phone infrastructure that was originally govt provided...the problems were manifold:

• response times to get a phone installed were measured in months
• innovation is one thing that competition does promote and Europeans enjoyed very little of that in phone service for the decades that the govt was the phone company
• the govt was the industry to a large extent so standards bodies generally worked with one hand tied behind their back.
• A "phone company" that was typically a subbureaucracy of the post office bureaucracy was a place where motivation to improve service would be stifled.

The underlying technology layers or the mix of technologies that we will use to deliver ever more bandwidth to ever more subscribers is just changing too fast to leave in the hands of bureaucrats and ultimately politicians. That ferment requires enterprises that can reinvent themselves frequently, not bureaucracies that inevitably ossify into selfperpetuating monuments to whatever problem they were originally chartered to do.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[wallykeyster]

You're probably right that cable is a natural monopoly. It doesn't necessarily follow that public ownership is the answer.

The alternative is to say a monopoly is okay and consumers don't need choice or competition in this huge market. A natural monopoly is not caused by illegal collusion and is not fixed by market forces.

Even a monopoly has to respond to market forces. Given that 80% rather than 100% of Americans have cable suggests that cable companies have found a point of maximal profit, but they don't set prices arbitrarily.

Why does a natural monopoly have to respond to market forces? Plenty of studies have shown significant price differences between cable markets with competition and those without. They only have to keep their prices within reason, based upon comparisons to cable service elsewhere or (only in the past few years) satellite service.

Furthermore, cable can't be a true monopoly in the sense that there are numerous imperfect substitutes, e.g. satellite, xm radio, broadcast tv, the internet, etc.

Somewhat true, but they don't compete in the same spheres. There are plenty of areas that can't get satellite or broadcast TV and the cable provider is their only broadband provider. Even satellite hasn't brought down the price of cable, although they have slowed the price gouge a bit. I watched my cost for service increase over 100% in only three years before switching to satellite. When the wife couldn't stand missing the locals any longer and the trade-in-your-dish deal got sweet enough, we came back to cable. I currently have DSL for Internet service, but will have no choice but cable once I move this summer.

Also, we're not talking about a vital service. Roads, water, power, etc. are vital services.

Why are these vital? I grew up in a rural area and I am preparing to move back there. Many of our roads are not maintained by the government, we aren't provided public water or sewage, and most everyone has a generator and wood stoves for the power outages that occur most winters. Today's economy relies on the "vital services" you listed, but any of us could do without if necessary (in theory, although many of us don't believe it possible). Today's economy is nearing the point where ubiquitous broadband is expected. You or I could do without it, but the economy needs it (or nearly does).

Cable TV is entertainment.

And this discussion happened only because those cables are being used for more than cable television service. Pay attention.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[h4rm0ny]

I don't understand why this should be shouldered by the tax payer, or can't be handled by private providers.

Well the customers of the corporate version are still tax payers. It's the same people. The question is one of which will cost them less.

In the corporate version,
cost = running costs + company profit.
In the publicly owned version,
cost = running costs.

The theory of capitalism is that competition drives down the running costs variable enough to balance out the profit part which is also limited by competition. This can be true.

But as stated previously, in a natural monopoly such as this, there is no real competition.

Now you can argue that it is not a natural monopoly, but you can't really argue that private ownership reduces costs without the competition.

It would be fair to say that the tax payer is "shouldering the burden" if the infrastructure benefits only a minority, but I think this is unlikely. Even the luddites will benefit from the fact that their society uses this infrastructure. So really, everyone pays one way or another, and what we really care about is what offers us the best price - private or public ownership.

Just to clear something up though - I've been using the term public ownership throughout, which some have taken to be synonymous with government management. It is not. There are two other options: One is that the government simply hires a private company. This preserves the competition aspect as private companies fight for the juicy contract. Two, is a community owned infrastructure.

There are difficulties to overcome with both to be sure, but they are certainly viable alternatives means to implement public ownership. It's dangerous to argue from pure theory. There are many successful examples of publicly owned infrastructure in many countries outside the USA.

Re:The Real Problem Here

[nine-times]

That it was done badly in Europe doesn't mean that it can't be done well. I myself am not in favor of big government, but I think all options should be considered. There are all sorts of roles the government might possibly play in the entire process of connecting people to the internet; they wouldn't necessarily need to take over the entire weight of it. For any pitfall you come up with, we could at least look for possible solutions (such as the phone company being run by the post office problem... you could choose not to have the post office run the phone company).

I agree entirely that the problem with the idea of a government-run ISP is the lack of competition brings about inefficiency and lack of innovation. However, privately-owned monopolies tend to suffer the same ills, and I'm not so sure that government-enforced private monopolies are any more healthy than government-enforced government monopolies.

No more Earthlink over Time Warner?

[willith]

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?

Re:No more Earthlink over Time Warner?

[jratcliffe]

In your case, you'll be able to continue to have Earthlink. Time Warner is required to allow Earthlink access based on terms agreed to as a condition of the AOL/Time Warner merger.

Re:No more Earthlink over Time Warner?

[burner]

If you're writing "cheques" you're probably not living under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. :-P

Re:No more Earthlink over Time Warner?

[UnknowingFool]

This ruling means that Time Warner cannot be forced to lease to Earthlink. It does not mean that Time Warner cannot lease to Earthlink. If Earthlink and Time Warner already have an agreement, then you're safe with your service. But if the agreement expires and Time Warner does not want to renew the agreement then, yes, your option vanish.

May Be Good News If...

[judmarc]

...it forces the telcos (Baby Bells, etc.) to come out with competitive broadband offerings to more areas more quickly.

E911 impact

[stecoop]

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?

very noble work

[AngelfMercy]

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.

Re:very noble work

[Zork the Almighty]

Well I've never even heard of Omcracy so they must be doing a good job.

IP Telephony...

[FosterSJC]

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.

I guess I don't understand.

[idontgno]

They're not a common carrier for purposes of access to underlying infrastructure, but at the same time they ARE a common carrier for purposes of content liability?

Is it unreasonable for me to be confused? Is a little consistency too much to ask here?

Major difference between phone and cable

[papasui]

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.

Re:Major difference between phone and cable

[idontgno]

phone systems used tax payer money

Disclaimer, I'm not a network engineer for a major cable company, phone company, or other for-profit infrastructure provider. Just a lifelong customer.

Last time I looked at phone infrastructure laying around, it was labeled "QWest", or "Northwestern Bell" if it's old enough. I realize there are subsidies, but still, I had the distinct impression that most telephone infrastructure was originally built up at telco expense.

Correct me if I'm wrong. (Hell, this is Slashdot; someone will correct me even if I'm right.)

Re:Major difference between phone and cable

[zoomba]

This is something I wish more people would understand. The difference between a necessary utility and an entertainment service. Having a telephone is as much a safety device as a communications service. If you don't have a phone you could end up in a world of trouble. If you don't have cable, you're just really bored on a Saturday night.

And you're right, the establishemnt of the basic infrastructure with telephones was a partially public funded endeavour. They also got a government sanctioned monopoly for many years in exchange for guarantees of service and universal coverage. Cable was almost exclusively private.

Re:Major difference between phone and cable

[inode_buddha]

Bullshit. The cable in my area (nominally Adelphia) was also taxpayer funded via a series of bond issues which were backed by local governments. Roughly 80% of the TV programming after 11 PM is paid programming, which we were told (as a community) might disappear for the then-small cost of a subscriber fee. Frankly I don't buy the BS anymore. That said, I don't see much difference between this and the breakup of Ma Bell.

Re:Major difference between phone and cable

[redelm]

AFAIK phone systems were not built using taxpayer money.

I also see this ruling differently. Both as limiting and levelling the playing field. There is effectively no requirement the RBC telcos share DSL with CLECs. I looked into it, and what requirement there is is priced exorbitantly in many states. De facto, none. So why impose one on cable when it will be bypassed similarly?

Why don't telcos refute "common carrier" status?

[wsanders]

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.

Ok. So I'm confused

[DanielMarkham]

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.

Re:Ok. So I'm confused

[srmalloy]

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.

Well, given the two court cases wherein in one trial President Harding's Secretary of the Interior, a Mr. Fall, was convicted of receiving a bribe from a financier named Doheny, who was acquitted in the other trial of paying the bribe to Fall, I'm not sure that 'sense' has any meaning when it comes to court judgements.

A safe haven?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

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)?

The Supreme Court is on a roll.

[jocknerd]

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.

The problem here.......

[Lunch2000]

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

Competition? In the next few years...

[WebHostingGuy]

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.

This could be bad for Cable too

[denis-The-menace]

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?

Infrastructure wants to be Free

[frankie]

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".

Ok.

[papasui]

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.

This may soon be a moot point

[akad0nric0]

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.

End of independent VoIP?

[Gadzinka]

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

Common Carrier?

[windex]

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...

Liability.

[AJWM]

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.

Good Ruling

[chill]

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.

The 1992 Cable Act provides right to leased access

[Calimar]

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?

Cable companies part of greater media companies

[hellfire]

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.

Scalia gets it right

[l2718]

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:

1. communications from your home to their ISP facility.
2. 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.

Re:Scalia gets it right

[jd]

I'm impressed - I don't usually regard him as having much in the way of understanding, but he seems to actually have a good grasp of technology here.

Actually, the companies involved are likely to start screaming for a reversal soon. Think for a moment - the main reason they've been able to avoid massive penalties for not monitoring everyone and for allowing illegal content is because they've claimed "common carrier" status.

They have now had that status well and truly removed, which means they are now potentially liable for ALL such content that they carry.

In the end, they have a choice - keep the legal protection, but lose the monopoly on the wires, or keep the monopoly but lose the protections. The former might cost them some profit, but the latter will (sooner or later) cost them their independence and maybe their existance. not much of a swap, if you ask me.

That was my first question as well

[jeffmeden]

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.

Many unintended consequences....

[FellowConspirator]

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.

Fits Like A Glove With Last Weeks Descision on..

[Halvy]

'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!! :)

VOIP port blocking

[rlds]

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.

I'm fine with 555-5767

[FatSean]

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.

Re:Let them _keep_ their network?!

[markhb]

Because cable companies have monopolies granted by local government....

This canard aggravates me no end. If you were to go down to your local franchising authority (FA) and actually look at the franchise contract, you will probably see the words non-exclusive. This means that the FA is allowed at any time to grant a franchise to any capable competitor who wants to do a build-out (where "capable" means "actually able to do what they say"). The effective monopoly comes from the fact that in almost all cases (Manhattan Island being an exception, IIRC), there is not nearly the population density to support two competing cable systems. But an effective monopoly is not the same as having an actual one granted by government.

Local Mandated Monopoly

[Bob_Robertson]

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-

censorship downside

[DunbarTheInept]

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.