| Author |
Message |
Dr. Cajones
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:07 pm Post subject:
High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case
December 03, 2004 12:58:00 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday it would decide
what regulations should apply to high-speed broadband Internet service
offered by cable television companies like Time Warner Inc. (TWX)
The Federal Communications Commission determined in 2002 that broadband via
cable companies was an information service and therefore insulated from most
regulations that apply to traditional telephone services.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned that
decision, relying on its previous ruling that broadband via cable companies
had a telecommunications component and should be subject to stricter
regulations.
The high court will likely hear arguments in March, with a decision due by
the end of June.
Broadband, also offered by telephone carriers, is catching on among many
U.S. consumers who want faster Internet service to, among other things, play
music and videos. About 28 million Americans subscribe to the service, but
the United States lags about a dozen countries in deployment.
President Bush pledged during his campaign that he would push for universal
access to broadband by 2007.
The FCC argued that the appeals court incorrectly overrode the agency and
its expertise to oversee and regulate the telecommunications and media
industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:37 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Dr. Cajones wrote:
| Quote: |
The Federal Communications Commission determined in 2002 that
broadband via
cable companies was an information service and therefore insulated
from most
regulations that apply to traditional telephone services.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned
that
decision, relying on its previous ruling that broadband via cable
companies
had a telecommunications component and should be subject to stricter
regulations.
|
It's less about whether there will be any control than about who has the
control: Federal or local jurisdictions. That was the issue in the
Portland case, and since this is the Ninth Circuit, this may be the same
case.
Briefly, the City of Portland told TCI (which was bought by AT&T
Broadband, and eventually merged with Comcast) that they had to provide
"open access" to their lines. That is, if people were to get Internet
service through the cable lines, they shouldn't have to choose TCI@Home
as their ISP, and could get their ISP services from any ISP.
When the case began, it was beyond what the technology was capable of,
but today, there are ways it can be done. For example, some Comcast
customers can choose Earthlink as their ISP instead of Comcast HSI.
After the Ninth Circuit ruled that it was a telecommunications
component, and should be regulated by the Federal government, and not
local governments, the City of Portland essentially lost. The could not
force what was then AT&T Broadband to offer other ISP's services through
their cable.
The FCC doesn't want to regulate cable Internet. The cable companies
don't want the FCC to regulate it, either, but I'm sure that they'd
rather have uniform national regulations than a hodgepodge of local
regulations to deal with. So if the Supreme Court overrules the Ninth
Circuit, that could open the door to more, but less uniform controls and
regulations than if the Supreme Court decides that the FCC should be
regulating cable internet as a telecommunications component.
This is one of those very complex cases that your preference at first
glance may have the opposite effect of what you want. If you want more
local control -- more input in your own service -- then you really
should be rooting for the Court to find that it's *not* a
telecommunications component subject to stricter Federal control.
Of course this is a great over-simplification of the case. But there's
no mistake that whichever way things go, we are bound to see changes in
how cable Internet service is regulated. Someone will regulate it when
it's all said and done. The case isn't concerned with how they'll
regulate it, so what will actually happen when all is said and done may
be quite unexpected.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
See the Christmas Lights:
http://www.holzemville.com/xmas2004/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave C.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:01 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
"Dr. Cajones" <drjawn.spamno@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f_GdnVVjroBdNi3cRVn-ig@comcast.com...
| Quote: | High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case
December 03, 2004 12:58:00 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday it would
decide
what regulations should apply to high-speed broadband Internet service
offered by cable television companies like Time Warner Inc. (TWX)
The Federal Communications Commission determined in 2002 that broadband
via
cable companies was an information service and therefore insulated from
most
regulations that apply to traditional telephone services.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned that
decision, relying on its previous ruling that broadband via cable
companies
had a telecommunications component and should be subject to stricter
regulations.
|
Well, that makes sense as all the cable companies are now telephone
companies. -Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:36 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Dave C. wrote:
| Quote: | Well, that makes sense as all the cable companies are now telephone
companies.
|
The case had nothing to do with telephone service offered by the cable
companies. Nothing to do with on-demand programing. Nothing to do with
analog or digital cable TV. Nothing to do with anything other than
providing Internet service, or more specifically, access to the cable to
others to provide Internet service.
What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that cigarettes should
be subject to the same regulations as booze because Phillip Morris owns
companies that produce and distribute booze. The other endevors of the
cable companies have nothing to do with this case.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
See the Christmas Lights:
http://www.holzemville.com/xmas2004/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave C.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:29 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
"Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QT5sd.436036$wV.242321@attbi_s54...
| Quote: | Dave C. wrote:
Well, that makes sense as all the cable companies are now telephone
companies.
The case had nothing to do with telephone service offered by the cable
companies. Nothing to do with on-demand programing. Nothing to do with
analog or digital cable TV. Nothing to do with anything other than
providing Internet service, or more specifically, access to the cable to
others to provide Internet service.
What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that cigarettes should be
subject to the same regulations as booze because Phillip Morris owns
companies that produce and distribute booze. The other endevors of the
cable companies have nothing to do with this case.
|
Well by that logic, the telephone companies shouldn't be regulated at
ll. -Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:26 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
I may be wrong guys, but I don't think it's about "regulating", but more
about "taxing" your HSD service.
;)
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message
news:31ceo7F397idfU1@individual.net...
| Quote: |
"Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QT5sd.436036$wV.242321@attbi_s54...
Dave C. wrote:
Well, that makes sense as all the cable companies are now telephone
companies.
The case had nothing to do with telephone service offered by the cable
companies. Nothing to do with on-demand programing. Nothing to do with
analog or digital cable TV. Nothing to do with anything other than
providing Internet service, or more specifically, access to the cable to
others to provide Internet service.
What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that cigarettes should
be subject to the same regulations as booze because Phillip Morris owns
companies that produce and distribute booze. The other endevors of the
cable companies have nothing to do with this case.
Well by that logic, the telephone companies shouldn't be regulated at
l. -Dave
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:18 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
| Quote: | I may be wrong guys, but I don't think it's about "regulating", but
more about "taxing" your HSD service.
;)
|
No. That would be a wrong assumption.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
See the Christmas Lights:
http://www.holzemville.com/xmas2004/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:19 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Dave C. wrote:
| Quote: |
"Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QT5sd.436036$wV.242321@attbi_s54...
Dave C. wrote:
Well, that makes sense as all the cable companies are now telephone
companies.
The case had nothing to do with telephone service offered by the
cable companies. Nothing to do with on-demand programing. Nothing to
do with analog or digital cable TV. Nothing to do with anything other
than providing Internet service, or more specifically, access to the
cable to others to provide Internet service.
What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that cigarettes
should be subject to the same regulations as booze because Phillip
Morris owns companies that produce and distribute booze. The other
endevors of the cable companies have nothing to do with this case.
Well by that logic, the telephone companies shouldn't be regulated at
ll. -Dave
|
Can you walk us through the logic behind that thought?
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
See the Christmas Lights:
http://www.holzemville.com/xmas2004/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave C.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
| Quote: |
Can you walk us through the logic behind that thought?
--
Warren H.
|
YES. You either regulate cable companies like the telephone companies that
they actually are, or you don't regulate telephone companies. Seems pretty
obvious, doesn't it? You can't on the one hand allow a cable company to act
like an unregulated telephone company and then on the other hand say that
all telephone companies should be regulated.
If cable companies are exempt from regulation because they are information
(ONLY) companies, then they are presumably NOT allowed to offer dial-tone
land-line telephone service. But they do JUST that.
On the other hand, land-line telephone companies also operate as an
"information" service (IE DSL). So if the cable companies can argue that
they are an information service, so can the telephone companies. -Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:57 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Dave C. wrote:
| Quote: |
YES. You either regulate cable companies like the telephone companies
that they actually are, or you don't regulate telephone companies.
Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? You can't on the one hand allow a
cable company to act like an unregulated telephone company and then on
the other hand say that all telephone companies should be regulated.
If cable companies are exempt from regulation because they are
information (ONLY) companies, then they are presumably NOT allowed to
offer dial-tone land-line telephone service. But they do JUST that.
On the other hand, land-line telephone companies also operate as an
"information" service (IE DSL). So if the cable companies can argue
that they are an information service, so can the telephone
mpanies. -Dave
|
Okay. Now I see what you missed.
Telephone SERVICE is regulated. The telephone service offered by cable
companies IS regulated as a telecommunications service. They don't get a
free pass because they're a "cable company".
Services of the telephone companies that aren't telecommunications
services aren't regulated as telecommunications service just because
they're offered by a "telephone company", and if a cable company -- or a
company you want to describe in any manner -- will have any
telecommunications services regulated regardless of whether they're a
"telephone company".
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
See the Christmas Lights:
http://www.holzemville.com/xmas2004/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chip Orange
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:01 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
"Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Phrsd.510770$D%.227670@attbi_s51...
| Quote: | Dave C. wrote:
YES. You either regulate cable companies like the telephone companies
that they actually are, or you don't regulate telephone companies. Seems
pretty obvious, doesn't it? You can't on the one hand allow a cable
company to act like an unregulated telephone company and then on the
other hand say that all telephone companies should be regulated.
If cable companies are exempt from regulation because they are
information (ONLY) companies, then they are presumably NOT allowed to
offer dial-tone land-line telephone service. But they do JUST that.
On the other hand, land-line telephone companies also operate as an
"information" service (IE DSL). So if the cable companies can argue that
they are an information service, so can the telephone mpanies. -Dave
Okay. Now I see what you missed.
Telephone SERVICE is regulated. The telephone service offered by cable
companies IS regulated as a telecommunications service. They don't get a
free pass because they're a "cable company".
|
Warren,
This is completely wrong; they do indeed get a free pass, and I know
something of the subject as I work for a government agency that regulates
telecommunications companies. Below is a quote from a cnet article to
support this:
Ben Charny, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
"providers of VoIP--voice over Internet Protocol--a cheap telephone
service in which phone calls use Internet Protocol (IP) to travel
over
the public Internet, or privately owned high-speed networks based on
IP. The calls are much cheaper than traditionally placed ones mainly
because of IP's efficiencies, plus most IP calls have so far avoided
regulation, while traditional phone companies must collect fees and
taxes from their customers."
Dave was right, and avoiding these fees and taxes, which fund many of our
most important ideas of social telecom responsibility is exactly why so many
people are interested in voip.
Chip |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:21 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Chip Orange wrote:
| Quote: |
Warren,
This is completely wrong; they do indeed get a free pass, and I know
something of the subject as I work for a government agency that
regulates telecommunications companies. Below is a quote from a cnet
article to support this:
Ben Charny, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
"providers of VoIP--voice over Internet Protocol--a cheap telephone
service in which phone calls use Internet Protocol (IP) to travel
over
the public Internet,
|
<snip>
Sorry, Chip, but VOIP is very different than the telephone service
offered by cable companies. VOIP uses the Internet to deliver service.
Phone service offered by Comcast does not use the Internet, and is
regulated the same as any other phone company offering local service is
regulated.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chip Orange
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:36 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
"Warren" <wholzem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Dervd.652689$mD.23962@attbi_s02...
| Quote: | Chip Orange wrote:
Warren,
This is completely wrong; they do indeed get a free pass, and I know
something of the subject as I work for a government agency that regulates
telecommunications companies. Below is a quote from a cnet article to
support this:
Ben Charny, Staff Writer, CNET News.com
"providers of VoIP--voice over Internet Protocol--a cheap telephone
service in which phone calls use Internet Protocol (IP) to travel
over
the public Internet,
snip
Sorry, Chip, but VOIP is very different than the telephone service offered
by cable companies. VOIP uses the Internet to deliver service. Phone
service offered by Comcast does not use the Internet, and is regulated the
same as any other phone company offering local service is regulated.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker
|
ok Warren, my apologies as Comcast doesn't offer that in my area (and maybe
not here in my state) as I've never heard of what you're describing. I
think I understand the idea, but I'm not sure when it comes down to it how
it's really different from VOIP, which is not regulated. If it's digitized
and sent over cable tv wiring, it's going to be hard to argue that one
should be regulated and the other should not be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:57 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Chip Orange wrote:
| Quote: | ok Warren, my apologies as Comcast doesn't offer that in my area (and
maybe not here in my state) as I've never heard of what you're
describing. I think I understand the idea, but I'm not sure when it
comes down to it how it's really different from VOIP, which is not
regulated. If it's digitized and sent over cable tv wiring, it's
going to be hard to argue that one should be regulated and the other
should not be.
|
The phone service provided by cable companies may be a digital data
carried on an RF signal to the cable company's headend location, at
which point it's connected to the rest of the phone network just as if
the headend was a CO. In other words, the headend essentially acts as a
CO. At that point, a phone call hits the same telecommunications network
the same as a call from a regular phone company. It never hits the
Internet.
VOIP isn't regulated if you have DSL, either. VOIP is an Internet thing,
leaving the end point on the customers Internet connection, and not
hitting the phone network until it gets to where the VOIP provider takes
it off the Internet. Essentially you're not making the phone call. The
VOIP provider is making a phone call. What you're doing isn't much
different than sending an audio IM that someone else is relaying to the
phone network.
So it's fairly easy to draw the line where it is, even if it doesn't
make practical sense to someone using VOIP the same as they would use a
telephone. In other words, it's easier to decide based on what the
technology is, rather than how people use the technology.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:40 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
We are rapidly approaching a point where the definition of "phone company",
"cable company" and "ISP" will blur to being the same company. I think all of
these regulations need to be thrown in the pot and dished out again.
I bet by the end of the decade they will just be selling bandwidth and what you
do with it is moot. I'm sure there will still be some POTS service, the same
way that we still support granny's 1946 Dumont TV but that is not where most
people will be buying their telecom service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in