FCC Reclassifies DSL, Drops Common Carrier Rules

Neil Wehneman writes "Via Media Law Prof Blog, it is reported that the FCC has reclassified broadband service as an "information service" instead of "telecommunications". This, among other things, gives the Baby Bells the same gift the cable companies got with Brand X : the right to stop opening their lines to competitors."

Comments

Re:First

[LostCluster]

As broadband is becoming more widely available it is becoming easier to switch providers, as well.

It won't be so easy if all that's left is the local monoploy cable company and the local monopoly phone company.

Re:First

[revscat]

It's about time they did this, goverment interference in the economy will, in the long run, screw people over. As broadband is becoming more widely available it is becoming easier to switch providers, as well.

It's been my experience that corporations are far more likely to screw people over than governments. Libertarian capitalism, like communism, looks good on paper but fails utterly in reality.

But who paid for the POTS infrastructure?

[Gothmolly]

Yes, its mostly modern fiber and VOIP internally, but there's copper to every house, and poles, and those discrete switching stations in the bushes. Who paid for all that? Since we (the US Taxpayers) did (whether its good or bad is irrelevant to this discussion), it should be open to all.
Those who live by the government teat (Telcos) should have to die by it, too.

Surely this leads to less competition?

[DavidRawling]

I don't understand.

Surely this means that the local "Baby Bell" will be able to prevent other companies from using the infrastructure, either directly or by pricing them out of the market?

If so ... how does this help the consumer? Who lobbied for this? And why was it done? TFA has little detail and the FCC press release seems to be more self-servient than anything else.

Now ... if the price they sell broadband at is $29.95/month, but they will only sell line access to the competing ISP at $39.95/month, the ISP cannot compete.

In Australia Tel$tra did just this (briefly) and got a slap on the wrist from our consumer agency, the ACCC. Is there a similar organisation in the US? Is that what the FCC press release is commenting on in the 2nd last para:

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should develop a framework for consumer protection in the broadband age - a framework that ensures that consumer protection needs are met by all providers of broadband Internet access service, regardless of the underlying technology.

The real reason this happened

[nurb432]

IS not to protect consumers.

The dropping of common carrier status also removes any protection of content. Now the ISP will be liable for content that passes over their lines.

The 'consumer' no longer will have a right to privacy, since its no longer considered 'telecommunications', which was protected.

So its not about protecting us, its about controlling and monitoring us. Oh, and if it happens to make the big campaign contributors a few bucks along the way, all the better.

Re:Not a good thing

[nagora]

why the rebulican party wants to kill local businesses, seeing that is what they say they stand for

No, the republican party stands for the republican party, that's all. Professional politicians are the last people you should turn to to run a country.

TWW