High court hands big victory to cable (busy SC day)

[wakeme2008]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/broadband_ruling/index.htm?cnn=yes

High court hands big victory to cable
Court overturns ruling requiring cable companies to open up high-speed Internet lines to rivals.
June 27, 2005: 10:13 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ruling Monday that required cable operators to open up their high-speed Internet lines to rivals.

The decision is a big victory for the Federal Communications Commission and major telecommunications companies, including Charter Communications, Time Warner Cable and SBC Communications.

On the losing side are small Internet service providers, including Earthlink, and a host of local governments. Top of page

..no more at link.

[Quetzal]

1. SCOTUS says Cable Companies Don't Need to Share Lines

Cable Companies Don't Need to Share Lines

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that cable companies may keep rival Internet providers from using their lines, a decision that will limit competition and consumers' choices.

The 6-3 decision is a victory for the Bush administration, which sought exclusive control to promote broadband investment from deep-pocketed cable companies.

Judges should defer to the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission, which concluded that limited access is best for the industry, the high court said in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.

More than 19 million homes have cable broadband service. At issue is whether cable Internet access is a "telecommunications service" under federal law that makes it subject to strict FCC rules requiring companies to provide access to independent providers.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700415.html

[whistle]

3. That's why cable rates run $50 to $100 per month...

...while cable reception is some of the worst available.

[brentspeak]

4. So much for the "free market"

Looks like Bush lawyers won a victory for their cable company cronies. Now the American public doesn't have to deal with the awful consequences of - gasp! - free market competition. (sarcasm)

[noamnety]

2. So much for the public good

eminent domain applies only to taking private property for corporate interests, not corporate property for public interest, I guess.

[mom cat]

10. Very well put.

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. I wonder if this will be a boost for WiMax?

Small ISPs working with local governments to provide wireless for local regions or something like that.

[rodeodance]

6. lots people I know switched to Dish--lower rates

[alarimer]

12. I don't know

Texas had a bill (I don't think it passed this time) to outlaw municipal wireless, even in small towns where SBC or Time Warner would not provide service.

[napi21]

7. I'll be interested to read this whole decision.

I obviously have a personal interest in it because I too am tired of the dam $50 broadband bill. I'm trying to be open minded enough to at least read WHY SCOTUS decided in favor of the cable companies!!!

[wakeme2008]

8. I would guess and probably agree with

they paid the $$$ to put the cable into the ground and wire houses for it only to have to share with somebody that did have a up front cost.

[oly]

9. I see your point, but ISP's would pay the cable guys for the

bandwidth. No?

[Massacure]

11. Ya, but the two have to agree on a rate.

Earthlink cannot demand Time Warner give them access to their lines for one cent per terabyte and then turn around and sue if Time Warner denies them.

If the big cable companies don't work something out though, they are bound to get eaten alive by satellite and DSL providers.

[napi21]

15. I agree with this partly. The Bells ALL sell time on their lines

to all their competitors. I happen to have Bell South here, but I could use some other co. for my local service. The other service just buys time to use Bell's lines.

The same thing can happen with cable.

[cascadiance]

13. Damn! It looks like they're going to go after DSL next too!

When is the corporate cronyism going to stop in this country!

[mccoyn]

14. Can any company run cable?

If I were to start an ISP, could I run cables along roads and into the homes of my customers or is this reserved just for the cable companies? That answer has a strong bearing on how I view this decision.

[napi21]

16. Of course you could, if you had enough $$ and wanted to make that

investment. I suspect that would be a bit dumb though. That's why all the phone companies have agreements and pay each other for line usage.

[stickdog]

18. It's not as simple as "of course you could." You need to be awarded a

local community contract, and if the community already has cable, that's not gonna happen.

Stop pretending that this is a free market. It ain't.

[napi21]

19. Perhaps I misunderstood your question. Or maybe it's me.

The biggest objections I hear are the cost of laying cable, especially if it would be duplicating other lines already there.

I know there's already $$ added to MY phone bill to cover the cost to lay cable to rural areas of the US.

I know buying time on lines works to lower prices because of what has happened with the phone companies. I don't understand why it can't work the same with the cable companies.

[K-W]

17. I love how they ignore the biggest group of losers.

The public who will have to contend with broad band manopolies.

And it isnt so much a victory for the FCC as for the administration. The FCC is an agency of the government and doesnt have interests as such.

[jarab]

20. kick ...

...O...

[Twist_U_Up]

21. Court Strikes a Blow Against Freedom Online

http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/BrandXdown.html

Washington, DC:

Today's decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court's classification of cable modems as a "telecommunications service" (and thus subject to the open access regulations that have long governed the dial-up Internet) poses a grave threat to the future of the Internet.

By upholding the FCC's March 2002 Declaratory Ruling that classified cable Internet as an unregulated "information service," the Supreme Court has paved the way for a privatized, tightly controlled broadband environment that will bear little resemblance to the open, diverse, and competitive Internet of the past.

As the ACLU warned in its Brand X brief to the Supreme Court, "…cable companies can leverage ownership of the physical infrastructure into control of citizens’ access to and use of the Internet. This threatens free speech and privacy. A cable company that has complete control over its customers’ access to the Internet could censor their ability to speak, block their access to disfavored information services, monitor their online activity, and subtly manipulate the information sources they rely on."

[madeline_con]

22. "This threatens free speech and privacy ..."

This is not good. :(

[halobeam]

23. It will take generations to fix this mess our country is in.

Sorry, but that's what is. It sucks.

[Mountainman]

24. I still use dial up since I don't get cable where I live. I think dial up

will still be available and not subject to cable restrictions I think.

[In Truth We Trust]

25. kick for truth................WE NEED A REVOLUTION NOW!

[madeline_con]

28. REVOLUTION IS AT HAND!!

Storm the Bastille!!!

[LightningFlash]

26. Won't work.

The decision doesn't do anything. The internet itself is far too large to censor. All this does is give companies control over who they allow access or not so they can kick people off for breaking the "rules".

Otherwise it doesn't determine any other actions......An eye opener of the fascist state at work.
:wow:

[madeline_con]

29. " ... they can kick people off for breaking the "rules"

"Otherwise it doesn't determine any other actions......"

Wouldn't the very act of posting certain material, say, an anti-* site, break the rules if certain ISPs if this thing gets through?

[LightningFlash]

30. No.....

Besides if it did, it would be violating the US constitution free speech ammendment. They'd have to sign it into law in each individual state, requiring 3/4, which would mean an UNVERIFIED DIEBOLD machine would have to be used over the course of 5 years.....

Not going to happen, that's not a possibility in the future.

[Occulus]

35. which goes hand-in-hand with their filesharing decision

said filesharing- even accessing the ports used, or some such- could get your access yanked.

And then the kicker:

"I'm sorry, sir, but our information indicates you have accessed ports on your previous providor's network that are commonly used for known criminal acts. We therefore require you accept an addition to your terms of service which will allow us to actively monitor your internet activity. Should you choose to be a subscriber to our service, this will be included in your terms of service agreement."

Or better yet:

"We are sending you this email to notify you that we have detected the use of ports on our network as commonly belonging to those used by known filesharing applications. We are terminating your account effective x/xx/xxxx and will be forwarding our packet sniff of the ports in question to the FBI.

Thank you for using Bliblah Communications, Inc."

EDITED TO ADD: This is all hypothetical. None of it would particularly surprise me.

[madeline_con]

27. "It’s time that Congress heard from Americans ...

... that Big Media shouldn’t be allowed to control the future of the Internet.”

Two can play this game. As hard as the right pushes for censorship against dissent, Dems need to point out the access to porn that undermines their "family values" bullshit.

Makes one wonder what the porn star's visit to the WH was all about. Schilling for the "right" content to be left alone?? All those Freekers in their Moms' basements need to have access...


on edit..

I hope this was clear. I have nothing against porn in adult hands. It's the hipocrisy (sp). ( My dictionary died in the hurricanes) :)

[democracyindanger]

31. So get DSL.

This also isn't Breaking News, but belongs in Editorial, FYI.

[kineneb]

33. Sorry, no access to DSL in rural areas

Can't get it where we live, so stuck w/cable modem or dial-up. Phone lines around here arn't that great, either.

[democracyindanger]

34. Really?

Typically DSL access precedes cable access--because all you need is a regular phone line. I live in a solidly metropolitan area--San Francisco--and even here DSL was available at least 2 years before cable internet access was.

[high density]

37. DSL brings in line-length issues

If you're more than three "wire-run" miles from your telephone company's central office (where the DSL equipment is located) then you may have a problem getting decent speeds (or a connection at all) via DSL.

[kineneb]

38. Distances really large in NorCal.

DSL also requires optical fiber, if I remember correctly, and I think almost all of the wiring here is old copper. A few areas in the western part of Lake Co. have DSL, but the rest of us are stuck with the cable co., satillite or dial up. Or what happens in a county with only 65K population. At least a third of the businesses in the Chamber of Commerce does not even have an e-mail address.

[high density]

36. I wouldn't touch cable internet with a 10ft pole here

Let's see, whould I go with Adelphia cable internet access that is rather unreliable or a local DSL provider that has near perfect reliability. Hmm, that's a no brainer.

[BBradley]

32. Corporate liberty is far more important to these people than

individual liberty. The only freedom they won't abolish is the freedom to consume.

[Endangered Specie]

39. If TWC tries that shit with me...

Ill switch to DSL.