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

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!

[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!

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.