9th Circuit Overturns FCC's Cable Modem Decision 344
rednaxela writes "The 9th Circuit today issued a decision overturning the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an 'information service,' stating instead that cable modem service consists of both an 'information service' *and* a 'telecommunications service.' Telecommunications services are classified under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and are subject to all kinds of regulation. Information Services are classified under Title I, and are largely free from regulation. If upheld, this decision will likely require cable modem providers to open their networks to competing ISPs. Further, this is likely to derail, or at least complicate, the FCC's plans to classify DSL service (which is provided primarily over incumbent telco facilities) as a unified 'information service." Bottom line - the 9th Circuit's decision may well have preserved open access for competing ISPs on all forms of wireline networks.' Here is the 9th Circuit's ruling (PDF).
I'm in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
Out here in Ruralland Canada, Shaw Cable is the only choice for highspeed, and they charge an arm and a leg AND make you sign over your firstborn. It's very annoying. I'd like to see them put in charge of the infrastructure alone, and have mom & pop ISPs handle the cable modems, and the end-user support. They should only have to pay a small per-client licensing fee, and be given free reign to charge what they'd like above that for internet access. They should also have the option of regulating speeds at their own discretion, for various bundle offerings.
Does anyone think this is a good way to break up monopoly power, or is it just silly?
Can't have it both ways (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, someone please explain to me how these two "goals" (less spam and more privacy) can co-exist with each other. I just really don't get it.
Re:Competition=good thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
BOTH GOOD & BAD (Score:4, Interesting)
This is bad for those that lack access to high-speed cable Internet, perhaps because they don't live in highly metropolitan areas. As it becomes more likely that a cable company will have to share its infrastructure, the cable company becomes more likely to drag its heels. For example, Verizon held back the deveopment of DSL in the northeast because they were forced to share their network.
Any thoughts?
Question? (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the cable companies totally funded the construction (or purchase of pre-existing) system, and had no government assistance financially or otherwise? If this is the case is it fair to force a private company to allow competitors to use the fruits of their labor?
I picture a similar case being United Parcel Services being forced to share it's truck fleet with the competition, just because no one else can afford to buy their own trucks.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Re:Competition=good thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No need to worry... (Score:4, Interesting)
What the hell!? (Score:2, Interesting)
South Korea has an easier job of it. (Score:3, Interesting)
South Korea has a much easier time rolling out broadband than the US.
In particular, something like 90% of the population lives in large apartment buildings in dense cities. LARGE apartment buildings. SO large that they each have a small telephone exchange in the basement.
Wiring all those apartments for broadband is a snap. For instance you can put a router in the basement, hook it into the SONET ring, and feed the phone lines with DSL. They're so short that getting 6 Mb to every apartment is a snap. (Or use two pair in the phone cable and send 'em Ethernet.)
In the US, on the other hand, you're dealing with a country that spans a continent from side to side and about a third of the way from top to bottom. Thousands of miles both ways. (It takes a week or so to drive across it.) On the average that takes a LOT of wire/cable/fiber to get everybody hooked up.
You'll notice that, like South Korea, the net (both narrow and broadband) is being rolled out mostly on existing copper: dialup, phone-pair DSL, and cable TV coax. (Exception is wireless, which also doesn't involve stringing something new to each house - just shine an antenna on it.)
But UNlike South Korea maybe half the population lives too far from the CO for even a 1.5 Mb downlink / puny uplink to work over phone pair.
Re:Build competing networks! (Score:1, Interesting)
Michael Powell is on the side of the media cos (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Bell system was formed about a hundred years ago by merging and buying out of other private phone companies. AT&T agreed to regulation in return for buying out their competition. The US goverment changed their mind in the 1980's and that lead to the mess we have in today's US phone system.
US Cable systems have fought hard to keep out both comptition and all levels of goverment controls.
bah. mark my words, this will be bad. (Score:3, Interesting)