Another bad decision. Supreme Court exempts cable from line-sharing http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/11998013.htm RULING AFFECTS COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE IN BROADBAND By Sam Diaz San Jose Mercury News The United States Supreme Court sided with the Federal Communications Commission on Monday when it ruled that cable Internet providers should not be forced to open their broadband networks to competitors. The 6-3 decision was immediately cheered and jeered for the potential implications that it might have on future competition and consumer choice in broadband Internet access in the United States. The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, overturned a federal appellate court decision that would have forced cable companies to open their lines to Internet service providers such as Brand X and EarthLink. The case turned on the definition of cable service. The FCC has defined cable broadband as an ``information service'' -- a definition that frees cable companies from requirements to share their networks. ``I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the FCC's ruling. This decision provides much-needed regulatory clarity and a framework for broadband that can be applied to all providers. We can now move forward quickly to finalize regulations that will spur the deployment of broadband services for all Americans,'' said FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin in a statement. ``Today's Supreme Court's decision is a victory for consumers [Yeah right] and maintains the momentum to advance broadband in the U.S. Classifying cable modem service as an interstate information service, as the FCC did, keeps this innovative service on the right deregulatory path,'' said the National Cable &Telecommunications Association. Others, however, said that the Supreme Court decision supported the idea of monopolies and delivered a setback to consumers who overpay for cable broadband service. ``Today's ruling is bad news for millions of Americans,'' said Mehrdad Saberi, chairman of the California ISP Association, which represents independent Internet service providers throughout the state. ``The interests of American consumers and businesses have been sold out as the FCC and now the Court have defined Internet service in such a narrow way that allows cable companies to escape proper regulation. Nearly every innovation in Internet service has come from independent ISPs. Now that source of Internet innovation, consumer choice and affordability is threatened with extinction as cable companies block the benefits of competition.'' The High Court decision in effect set different ground rule for the cable industry than the phone industry has. The Baby Bell phone companies have been required to share their networks with competitors. Within hours, Verizon called on the FCC and Congress to finish the job of deregulating other broadband service providers -- notably phone companies -- and to treat all competing broadband services alike. ``This decision highlights the reasons for Congress to act now to provide consumers the full benefits of broadband by establishing a national broadband policy that fosters innovation and investment.''
From the "dissent": "JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE GINSBURG join as to Part I, dissenting. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) has once again attempted to concoct “a whole new regime of regulation (or of free-market competition)” under the guise of statutory construction. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., .... Actually, in these cases, it might be more accurate to say the Commission has attempted to establish a whole new regime of nonregulation, which will make for more or less free-market competition, depending upon whose experts are believed. The important fact, however, is that the Commission has chosen to achieve this through an implausible reading of the statute, and has thus exceeded the authority given it by Congress."
Sounds like you have more knowledge than I do. Please enlighten me how this ruling is a victory for consumers.
Why does it sound like I have more knowledge than you do? I was just asking you. Since you have such a strong opinion on the matter, I was hoping you would be the one enlightening us.
I think your original question (or the intention thereof) is ridiculous. Does one have to have profound knowledge on the inner working of broadband and datasharing in order to voice an opinion? Or in general, does one have to be an expert in an field to have an opinion? To answer your question, let me ask you this: do you think the consumer advocate groups speak for you, or the cable industry?
I asked a simple question, that does not imply that you need to have profound knowledge on the inner workings to voice an opinion. Nor does it imply anything about being an expert. It does imply that you should know SOMETHING. Which, apparently you don't, and I don't know much either, which is why I am not automatically jumping to what I think is the "liberal" or "conservative" side. I don't trust consumer advocate groups in general. I think they are in general too anti-capitalist and their ideas would hurt everbody, including consumers, workers, and business. I don't think it is obvious that this decision hurts consumers. 1 conservative and 2 liberals disagreed, everyone else agreed with the decision.
Couldn't find an exact answer, but I think cable does. And they are much more advanced as far as getting broadband services (or so I read in an article). And it looks like phone companies will be getting the same deregulation treatment.
Come on Mr. Clutch, why do you think I want to bring "liberal" and "conservative" into every discussion? The reason I underlined the names of the justices is because I intend to highlight the common misconception - me included - that (Supreme Court) justices often vote in bloc, within which the political ideology of each member is along the similar line. Well I am glad you yourself are not jumping to that conclusion either. I think I am at least as knowledgeable as these justices (if having a master's degree in computer science and a daily responsibility in system administration mean anything) on broadband communication, but this is still irrelevant, IMO, as one ONLY needs to have a common sense to voice one's opinion. Frankly, I am surprised to know you are so strongly against consumer advocate groups. I guess you probably don't subscribe to Consumer Report. But the interesting thing is, again IMO, this ruling in fact discourages open and free competitions, which is against the principle of capitalism, something you are so fond of.
I think if cable companies buy the lines, why would they have to share it, it's their infrastructure right. If the competitors want to get in they can pay for their own lines. I think if you want more competition and better prices, this is the way to do it, the competitors will build a better connection and then offer cheaper prices. It doesn't seem like anything is stopping them from getting into that market.
I am pretty sure neither of us is as knowledgeable on broadband communication and the legal history of thereof as the justices are. Yes, you only need to have a common sense opinion, but it seems to me that you just automatically jumped on the consumer advocate's side without seeing both sides. I don't agree that this discourages competition. It seems in the short term consumers will have fewer choices, but in the long term there will be a lot more growth in broadband. Is there something wrong with being fond of capitalism? And the consumer advocate's comments just show why I tend to ignore them. "The interests of American consumers and businesses have been sold out." "We see it as the cable companies and operators of the cable networks really having consumers under their thumbs." Calm down guys.
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court essentially says: 1) The cable modem service is a form of information services, not telecommunication services. 2) Even if there is something in the cable modem service which can be categorized as a telecommunication service, it is deemed to be an integral part of the information service, which can not be "offered" as a standalone product to customers, as argued by cable companies, and agreed by FCC. [This is just BS, which Scalia rebutted thoroughly in his dissent.] 3) The 9th Circuit Court wrongly ruled against FCC, despite the mess FCC caused and the ambiguous rules it created. Therefore, the decision by the 9th Circuit Court should be reversed. According to the Telecommunications Act, providers of information services are subject to much less stringent regulations than companies that provide telecommunications services. This Supreme Court ruling frees up the restrictions the cable companies see "unfair". Now that the cable industry is free to invest without any feeling of "forced" redistribution of their "properties", we'll see how things go. But if the recent history serves any guide, this ruling does not bode well for consumers. You see what has happened to your cable (TV) bills since the deregulation of cable (TV) industry in 1993 and the kind of "improvements" on cable programming. On the other hand, you see the steady drops of phone bills - I am talking about the long distance rates (international rates in particular) - when the telephone industry is being scrutinized, where competitions are unhindered. US has already lagged behind in broadband services compared to several industrialized countries. I seriously doubt cable companies will have very high impetus to invest and innovate, given their comfortable monopoly positions guaranteed by Supreme Court and FCC. All they have to do is sit and collect profit, until they feel somewhat threatened by advances from peer industries, DSL services, for instance, which BTW is still subject to FCC regulations. In my own experience, I haven't see much improvement, if any, on my home cable-modem broadband service since I had it in early 2000.
Baby Bells and the cable industry has already shut down the free wi-fi from cities movement. These bastards also get subsidies from all levels of government. Their obsolescence would've made them dead long ago in a true free market economy.
When FCC lost its oversight of the industries it is supposed to regulate - in its approval of media merger/consolidation and neglecting cable industry's monopoly on broadband, yet eagerly acted as a moral police in tightening up media censorship, you could sense where this country is headed.
Actually I have seen a lot of improvements in cable. There is now digital cable, with HD, and there is iControl where you can order a movie. It's better than satellite for me. I disagree that this ruling is a disincentive to invest. Quite the opposite, now that cable companies don't have the risk of being regulated or having other companies take their profits, they can now invest all they want without fear of regulatory risk. Here's a section from a study I found: Though the threat of “open access” poses dangers, cable has remained relatively unencumbered by regulation, which a number of analysts credit for its comparative success in the residential market. Hazlett and Bittlingmayer (2001) point to the victory of “closed” cable over “open” DSL in the marketplace as evidence that “open access” would hamper broadband expansion. Industry analysts draw a similar inference. According to Blake Bath, analyst at Lehman Brothers: ” The reason that the cable companies really stepped up their investment in 1997 and beyond was they were not regulated, they weren’t forced to open up their networks. There were multiple revenue streams that they could address. They could price the services however they wanted.” (Quoted in Thierer [2001], p. 15.) In a sense, it is like property rights. If cable truly owns what they build, then they are more likely to build more of it, which is good for consumers.
Mr. Clutch, do you or does anyone in your family/close knit circle work for a cable company? You sure speak like a spokesperson for cable industry. I give up on you (on this issue). BTW, I love your "what's good for the company is good for consumers" line. I'll keep this in mind any time I have a D&D with you in the future.
Nice response, wnes, very nice. Way to lose gracefully. I'll keep this in mind next time I think about wasting my time arguing with you.
Don't get uptight, Mr. Clutch, please. So I guess your answer to my question is NO? In that case, I really admire (I mean it) your faith in cable industry's self discipline and its concerns for customers. Now if you could graciously grant me one last chance to question you before you decide to ignore me for good, in your mind, is there any instance in which government oversight (of an industry) and consumer advocacy groups' alertness are beneficial to general public, and while at the same time, do not hurt that industry? And follow-up question, if you don't mind, how different is it from the FCC regulating cable industry on broadband in this case?
