Court overturns cable-modem rules

MSNBC ^ | 10/07/03 | ASSOCIATED PRESS

[AbsoluteJustice]

Ruling could spur competition among Internet providers

ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 6 — A federal appeals court opened the door Monday to additional rules on high-speed Internet access over cable television lines, overturning a Federal Communications Commission decision that competitors say has kept them locked out of the cable systems.

IN AN OPINION issued Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the FCC made a mistake when it classified cable Internet as just an “information service.” The judges, basing their ruling on a decision in an earlier case, said cable-based broadband also is a “telecommunications service,” which under current law would make it subject to the steeper rules of the telephone industry. The FCC voted in March 2002 to exempt cable companies from laws that force phone companies to open their lines to competition. At the time, officials said the move was necessary to spur more investment in high-speed Internet services.

[AbsoluteJustice]

So much for the free market. Lets forget that 1)most companies that have tried to piggy back onto other company DSL lines have gone bankrupt and have not been able to offer reliable service. 2)Let us also forget the fact that this will degrade MY SERVICE as more people hop on current cable lines. Another brilliant move by the 9th circuit liberal court.

[Support Free Republic]

Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!!

Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute!

[Always Right]

IN AN OPINION issued Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco....

That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

[RiflemanSharpe]

So much for the free market. Lets forget that 1)most companies that have tried to piggy back onto other company DSL lines have gone bankrupt and have not been able to offer reliable service. 2)Let us also forget the fact that this will degrade MY SERVICE as more people hop on current cable lines. Another brilliant move by the 9th circuit liberal court.

Don't worry to much, the 9th Circus get overturned more often the a Ford Explore on Firestones.

[AbsoluteJustice]

MUHAHAHAHHA...that is classic.

[The Old Hoosier]

IMPEACH THE NINTH CIRCUS!

[Revolting cat!]

Yeah, it's so nice and 'freemarkettish' to not have a choice of cable providers, to pay through the nose and to pay ComCast $15 higher for Internet access when not ordering cable idiot box programming. War is peace, monopoly is free market!

[trebb]

That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.

A buck-ten if you live in Seattle - oop, that's right, the tax failed...

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Yeah, it's so nice and 'freemarkettish' to not have a choice of cable providers, to pay through the nose and to pay ComCast $15 higher for Internet access when not ordering cable idiot box programming.

I had cable for two years. I loved it. Only had problems twice, both times when there was a switch going on.

But then they doubled my rates because I didn't have cable TV. The funny thing is, I do have cable. It comes with the apartment. That apparently doesn't count.

I dropped cable for DSL. It is almost as fast and it costs me about a third as much. Better service too!

[AbsoluteJustice]

When is it the Government's job to dictate to the free market that you must open yur business access, built with you money to competitor's? Furthermore, as I have said not 1 company has been successful as all have gone bankrupt when hopping on current DSL lines. They are unable to provide reliable service so the consumer is back to square 1)Back to the company who owns the lines. The Courts have no legal justification to make this decision. Because Chevy is more profitable than Ford must we now make Chevy dealers carry Ford Trucks?

[RicocheT]

I disagree. This decision fosters a free market. Sure, the cable company ran the lines and paid for them. But, once up, they had a monopoly that was resistant to improvements and price controls.

Opening the lines to other providers will give us more choices and better prices. The new provider will have to pay a fair price to the original cable company for use of the lines, but is able to offer different content to the customers.

DSL crapped out because the local telcos didn't let others in to provide DSL. If they did get in, the telcos jacked them around until they went broke. I know as I lost a ton of money on DSL stocks.

[Marie Antoinette]

We have one cable provider in my small town and it is based 100 miles away. There are two different cable companies within 25 miles, and if there were some kind of competition, it's possible we'd have broadband in here by now!

[Nick Danger]

most companies that have tried to piggy back onto other company DSL lines have gone bankrupt and have not been able to offer reliable service

Didn't we already go through this 20 years ago with long distance telephone? There must have been a hundred companies that tried to buy bandwidth in bulk from AT&T, and sell it at retail. Not one survived. The only guys who made "competitive long distance" work (Sprint, MCI) built their own plant.

Why do three judges think we need to re-live Long Distance Hell with cable Internet? Didn't they learn a damned thing from watching what happened last time?

[AbsoluteJustice]

I agree with you partially. These bankrupt companies cost us, the consumer dearly; in taxes, in service, and in business continuity. Status quo is ok for me now unless getting gouged.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Sounds like Enron to me, doesn't it? Phone trading=Energy trading?

[Joe Bonforte]

There must have been a hundred companies that tried to buy bandwidth in bulk from AT&T, and sell it at retail. Not one survived.

Well, actually one did. LDDS (Long Distance Discount Services), based in Jackson, Mississippi. Eventually went on a buying spree for other companies, and later changed their name. You would know them as WorldCom.

So the one survivor turned out to be the most corrupt of the lot....

[FreePaul]

So much for the free market.

If your cable company is engaged in a "free market" enterprise it is unique. Cable companies are granted monopolies by government entities and are guaranteed to be able to operate without competition. Many of these monopolies are the result of bribes paid to government officials. When anyone who wants to run a cable to my house is treated the same as the local cable company we may have a free market.

[Rebelbase]

Proper tipping of the cable installers with a nice, expensive six-pack of beer goes a long way. I am amazed at how many channels I receive on "basic" service.

[Revolting cat!]

When anyone who wants to run a cable to my house is treated the same as the local cable company we may have a free market.

Exactly! These knee-jerk, thoughtless reactions spouting nonsense about some "free market" and about the badness of anything having to do with goobermint, are getting to be amusing. On another note, there are plenty of small companies offering competitive rates on telephone long distance. Who needs strawmen like WorldCom?

[FreePaul]

Proper tipping of the cable installers with a nice, expensive six-pack of beer goes a long way.

I've heard the same thing from many who have cable. I guess the corruption in the cable business extends in both directions.