| Got a minute? |
 |
| I'd really like you to rub my ears, or help out FR. |
Posted on 10/14/2003 2:55:18 PM PDT by DeFault User
The brewing war over broadband
By Jim Hu Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Story last modified October 13, 2003, 12:00 PM PDT
A legal decision striking down a key definition of cable broadband as an information service could signal tougher regulation for the high-speed Internet access industry. Last week's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco takes direct aim at the Federal Communications Commission, which has long shielded the cable industry from government regulation.
News.context
What's new: If not overturned, a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would subject cable broadband to more regulation.
Bottom line: The Federal Communications Commission plans to appeal the ruling, in an effort to retain its policy of giving the cable industry a long leash to develop broadband services.
For more info: More stories on this topic
The FCC's pending challenge to the ruling will postpone any immediate policy changes. However, if the appeals court's decision takes effect, analysts say the agency will find it more difficult to maintain policies pursued under Chairman Michael Powell, who has generally sought to give the private sector a long leash.
"What the FCC wants to see eventually is the continued investment in the build-out of these (cable) networks," said Mike Paxton, an analyst at market research firm In-Stat/MDR. "What they're trying to avoid is overregulating or placing onerous regulations on service providers or services to consumers. That's (Powell's) guiding principle."
A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit on Oct. 6 issued a ruling rejecting the FCC's opinion that cable broadband should be considered solely an "information service." That's important because the government can regulate networks that are deemed "telecommunications services," but it cannot regulate information services.
If the ruling stands, the government could force cable providers to lease their broadband lines to outside companies. A similar rule applies to the Baby Bells--Verizon Communications, SBC Communications, Qwest Communications International and BellSouth--which have long been required by law to lease their digital subscriber lines (DSLs) to third parties.
However, the FCC's policies on information services are not slanted in favor of cable. In its Triennial Review process earlier this year, the FCC decided to lift requirements for the Bells to share their lines when venturing into new "advanced broadband services," such as fiber-optic lines to homes. The Bells have said they would invest billions of dollars into these fiber-to-the-home systems, which can support enough bandwidth to challenge cable's products.
The Oct. 6 ruling sparked a rallying cry of approval among smaller Internet service providers (ISPs), consumer-advocacy groups and some legal experts. "The court ruling will open up cable systems so that consumers can choose their ISP when using a cable-modem connection," David Baker, vice president of law and policy at EarthLink, said in an interview on the day of the ruling. "The FCC is trying to create a world where consumers get choice at best between a DSL provider and cable provider."
But the cable industry sees it differently. Cable companies view their networks as the result of private development and investment that should not be required by law to lease lines when third parties knock on their doors. Already, some cable companies such as Time Warner and Comcast have contractual agreements with third parties, most notably including EarthLink, to provide cable-modem service.
Cable companies also point out that their businesses differ from the phone companies, which are guaranteed a rate of return based on their local franchises. That's something cable cannot tap.
"There isn't a state cable commission that says you'll get a percentage back on every invested dollar," said Dan Brenner, senor vice president of law regulatory policy at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), an industry lobbying group. "Our point is this is a private investment and the 1996 (Telecommunications) Act defines telecom services as those that provide transport to public for a fee. We've never offered that service."
Policies for growth The FCC's hands-off policies since the mid-1990s have helped the cable industry maintain a healthy lead over its Baby Bell rivals. By the end of 2003, cable is expected to have 13.3 million broadband subscribers, compared with 7.5 million for DSL, according to estimates by market researcher In-Stat/MDR.
Cable was early to sell broadband; the Bells were less-enthusiastic about investing heavily in DSL because they'd have to share their products with competitors.
Much of today's debate began with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required the Bells to lease their phone lines to outside companies in hopes of sparking competition for local phone service. DSL, which at the time was in its market infancy, was considered a telecommunications service and subject to these rules.
Cable, on the other hand, was not required to lease its lines and deemed separate from the Bells. This distinction allowed the cable companies to invest heavily to upgrade their networks without regulations impeding their way.
Between 1996 and 2001, cable companies spent an estimated $75 billion to convert analog networks to digital, largely in response to competition from satellite TV. The investment opened up enough bandwidth to allow cable companies to introduce new features to their subscribers, such as hundreds of channels of TV programming, video-on-demand, high-definition television, voice calling and faster, high-speed Internet.
"Either you build it out or you will be part of economic history," said Matthew Spitzer Dean of the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law. "That's what spurred cable companies to build out the digital transmission part."
Now with most of their networks supercharged for digital, cable companies want a return on their investment, and the FCC has appeared willing to defend their interests.
The FCC's next move Shortly after the 9th Circuit released its Oct. 6 ruling, the FCC's Powell threw down the gauntlet, criticizing the decision as a "monkey wrench into the FCC's efforts to develop a vitally important national broadband policy." In his statement, Powell added, "I will direct the FCC's General Counsel to appeal."
Powell could take one of two routes. He can appeal to the circuit court and ask for an en banc hearing, where the court selects 11 judges to hold a hearing on the issue and throw out last Monday's ruling if it so decides.
"If (the ruling) were appealed to an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit, it would be a different case because an en banc panel is not bound by holdings of a three-judge panel," USC's Spitzer said. "They would look at the question fresh."
Powell also has the option of going straight to the U.S. Supreme Court with or without another hearing by the appeals court.
The process and all the filings in preparation for these hearings could take months. Meanwhile, the cable industry remains steadfast that there will not be any near-term implications to its business.
"We don't think we have had our time in court yet," said the NCTA's Brenner.
No DSL available, cheesy cable company promised, but never delivered, broadband, so I'm up the creek.
I'll be darned if I'm going through the satellite hassle.
Bitter? Not too.
The only hassle for us has been the occassional outage due to weather, otherwise it's great. I hear that it is a pain for those that play certain realtime games because you're always a couple of seconds behind. Downloading, however, is otherworldy compared to dialup.
Am I the only one who is sick to death of hearing about THESE SCUMBAGS IN BLACK OUT IN SAN FRANCISCO on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?!!!
Man! I wish they would all just fall into a black hole. Or crawl back under the rock that Clinton found them under.
I'm embarrassed to look my neighbors in the eye. My house looks like CIA headquarters already.
Starband or Direct?
Yep, investment in corrupt local gummints and politicians who granted them ironclad, government guaranteed monopolies in just about every community they operate. Whatever one thinks of the 9th Circus, the status quo is NFG all around.
Some friends of mine don't have DSL or cable-modem available for various reasons. But, where there is a unserved need in this area, wireless ISP's have popped up to provide service. It's not as fast: typically 256-512 Kbps downstream. But, it's better than dialup.
Yep, and these cable companies spent untold millions of dollars to bury cable throughout your neighborhood, and now they are supposed to let some "johnny come latelys" use their frigging wires? Get real.
Whats even more frustrating, is the local college, a mile up the hill, has a ton of T1 lines that I cannot access.
Kerry?
Clark?
I'm prepared to switch allegiance for whatever charlatan promises me broadband and delivers.
It's an election year and I'm a New Hampshire primary voter.
Let's pander.
The "cables" in my neighborhood are on my property, within a "utility right of way" or easement. The cable is so old that only one cable company is willing to bid on providing service. No cable company is going to replace the cables, without an exclusive contract that would ensure them a profit. That's called capitalism, i.e. the American way.
Perhaps you would like to undertake a "recabling" of my neighborhood and then allow anyone to use the cable. If not, shut up.
Let's see, where would Steven start?
False Dilemma, for sure!
Anonymous Authorities as in "That's called capitalism, i.e. the American way."
...and Straw Man, most certainly!
Vulgarity uncategorized!
Any CDMA phone that displays "1X Ready" can be provisioned for 1XRTT network service at 144 Kbps. Verizon offers unlimited usage for $80/month. Just hook the USB cable to the data port on the bottom of the phone. I'm using the service for some commercial contracts where I'm moving volumes of data from coal cars in Alabama to my server in Virginia. You could easily set up "internet sharing" to route this connection to your home LAN. The best transfer rates I've seen for an 18 MB transfer fall in the 7 kilobytes/second range. Poorest was aroudn 1.8 kilobytes per second in a hotel room in Vienna, VA.
The new FCC rules allow the telcos to shut out the competition when they replace their archaic copper lines with fiber optic networks. This would level the playing field and give the telcos an incentive to upgrade their telecommunications infrastructure.
In the long run, this court ruling may be worse news for the telcos than the cable companies.
If you know someone on the campus, you may be able to hook up a bootleg broadband network with a pair of Airbridge radios and directional high-gain antennas about the size of a note pad.
I can not possibly stress enough how much I despise that phrase, regardless of the business/industry to which it is being applied.
Calling upon the government to "level the playing field" is just another way of seeking more government regulation and control of private business/industry. Why on earth would anyone seek more government regulation, unless one profits from it??????
Increased government regulation only helps the big guys create monopolies - when the purpose of the government regulation is supposedly to do the opposite.
"Leveling the playing field" only winds up serving one purpose - screwing the consumer because they no longer have any choice.
Less government regulation, except in the most necessary cases, is the only way to level the playing field, so that everyone has the same opportunity to make a go of their business.
I agree with you that the best thing for everyone is deregulation. But that is NOT happening any time soon with the telcos. The cable industry is bleeding consumers dry, and they aren't about to give up that cash-cow without a fight.
Government regulation in this case certainly hasn't helped "the big guys" create monopolies. It has just about put them out of business.
The court wants to redefine what broadband is about. It is taking that option away from the FCC, which currently protects the cable industry from having to compete in the open market. They have never had to. Meanwhile, telcos operate under the most stringent and archaic guidelines possible. Maybe it's because people like you think they will become "monopolies" if big gov doesn't prevent it. LOL.
Cable rates have doubled in the past five years for most areas. Phone rates have gone down. Cable providers aren't required to give a portion of their lines to their competitors to "level the playing field", either--but telcos are. The list of double standards goes on and on.
One reason is because of the mindset people still retain from the days of mega Bell monopoly--and because cable has done a fantastic job of convincing the public that it is not a telecommunications business. Those days are over. In fact---there's nothing to prevent every one of the telcos from going under. They will if some of the regulations aren't lifted.
Sorry that you took my earlier remarks so personally!!It's been a long time since anyone on a chat board spent so much time lecturing me about what the meaning of is "is". What next, a spanking? LOL.
The thing that needs to happen at the FCC is to replace Clinton appointee Michael Powell with Kevin Martin. Martin has the right balance of smart deregulation, incentives for competition and respecting states rights. Powell need to be appointed Ambassador to Uruguay, or some other place where he can do no more harm.
The deal I propose for utilities like telcos and cable companies is that they can be totally deregulated when they give up their quasi-governmental powers like eminent domain and institute reforms on the use of your property's utility easement. If we're going to level the playing field, let's start treating them like any other private enterprise. Otherwise, it's reasonable to expect utilities to comply with some rules like line-sharing in return for the extraordinary powers they're given by law.
$60/Mo for the 2-way system (as opposed to the 1-way system which uploads via phone line). The introductory rates of which you speak are as follows: First year is $100/Mo + $100 at beginning OR $60/Mo w/ $580 up front which pays for equipment and installation. A licensed installation is required for the 2-way system because it transmits.
I know that some of the telcos are walking away from DSL entirely until some of this changes, because of the restrictions that have been placed on them, and the inability to compete. How many baby Bells are left now?
Side note: VZ lost their suit fighting to protect their clients rights to privacy. Now some of the others are doing similarly. The telcos don't like being forced to give up their customers identities, especially without any notice to the customer (think Napster, Kazaa). You don't see the cable companies doing this. Maybe because they share the same pov as the plantiffs in the illegal downloading saga.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.