Court Ruling Points Way To Broadband Regulation 217
DarkHelmet writes "An article on CNET News indicates: 'A U.S. appeals court has rejected the Federal Communications Commission's request to rehear a case, in a move that could prompt local governments to regulate the cable industry.' The piece explains: 'The rejection could pave the way for municipalities to force cable companies to share their broadband Internet lines with third parties.' I personally can't wait for companies like Speakeasy to branch into the Cable Internet market and provide 10-100mbps service."
Whatever... (Score:1)
Re:Whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
de? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:de? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I expect to have any more power to get local authorities to do as I wish than to get the federal government to do so. It'll still be about which rich guys are buddies with which other rich guys.
Re:de? (Score:3, Informative)
By any other name would smell as sweet.
-W. Shakespeare
Just because it has a name like 'regulation' or 'deregulation' doesn't mean bull.
By the way, I am against this. Not because I don't like cheap broadband, but because I hate the idea that instead of people running more wires, they want to force people to share wires. In my old town of Arlington, Mass, RCN and Comcast competed, but RCN ran its own infrastructure on the poles just like comcast did. Having its
If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:4, Insightful)
share the bandwidth nearby
or
share the bandwidth, just further upstream.
and if cables bandwidth is shared...there must be some huge headroom, because here in san antonio, sustained downloads of 375Kb/s is now possible(we had a recent speed bump)
that's just shy of 3Megabit....faster then a T1 on the download side.
on the other hand...DSL here, max sustained download is 140Kb/s
so what was your point again?
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2, Insightful)
This I do not understand. If 375Kb/s = 375,000 b/s, then how can this be more than 3,000,000 b/s?
Define: Megabit [google.com.pr]: Approximately one million bits of data
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:3, Informative)
375KB/s would require more than a 3Mb/s connection, since 375,000*8=3,000,000 and that does not account for any overhead.
The grandparent probably just mistyped b for bit instead of B for Byte. Download speeds are customarily measured in Bytes, and connection speeds in bits.
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2)
No,
375 Kb/s == 375,000 B/s == 375,000B/s * (8 b/B) == 3,000,000 b/s
I think...
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2)
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:3, Informative)
Mostly, it's a matter of giving the public only as much as they want, without having to go above and beyond the call.
If there are more than one cable internet provider within the area, companies are going to be more willing to compete for service plans with higher bandwidth. In turn, if the node ends up becoming saturated, the cable company will then be forced to upgrade the fiber running to the node.
T
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:1)
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:4, Interesting)
Cable has Tonnes of room for Downstream (Information to the Customer).. Its the dreaded upload is where you start to run into problems on cable.. most systems I have seen have ~20ish to 40ish mzh available for upload available (If they offer Telephony services this is significantly lower aswell as any other 2 way services) some systems might only have 20-30mzh available
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, but cable companies currently aren't giving end-users anywhere near that amount of bandwidth!
Currently there's no incentive whatsoever for the existing cable company (say, Time Warner) to provide quality service. There's no incentive for Time Warner not to terminate users who happen to exceed some arbitrary bandwidth usage pattern. There's no incentive for Time Warner to p
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:5, Informative)
With DSL, the closer you are to the CO, the higher your theoretical maximum bandwidth. But, in order to maintain consistency of service, DSL providers give everyone a speed that is determined to work all the way up to the maximum theoretical distance limit for DSL.
Cable doesn't quite work this way, for a few reasons. First, the cable TV system in the US is a fairly new network, meaning that the infrastructure itself is generally of higher quality. This is what allows cable to offer speeds superior to DSL. Second, a cable signal, being a much more powerful signal than DSL, and nearly always running on shielded lines, doesn't deteriorate near as badly over distance. Cable providers' bandwidth limits are purely marketing-driven, and don't come anywhere near the physical limits of the cable connection.
Presumably any government regulation would require the cable provider to sell the third-party ISPs as much bandwidth as they wanted, meaning that if you were willing to foot the bill, you could max out the physical capabilities of the cable network, which is probably somewhere close to LAN speed in most places.
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2, Insightful)
Not entierly true (or at least it used to not be). I know there were places in the country (mostly California and New York with extremely high population density) where cable fell between dialup and ISDN - I knew a few people who claimed dialup speed. I do not know if that is still the case but do not think it is. Living in fairly rural east Tennessee I've pretty much al
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2)
No, the age of the system has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of design purpose: for phone service, all that was needed was a bidirectional channel of
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2)
But since we're talking about the cable television industry, my bet is on this eventually reducing our bandwidth.
Bandwidth Shared with neighbors (Score:2)
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottleneck between cable and DSL isn't removed, just moved to a different point in the network. You still need a big pipe going in, and that pipe can be saturated. Doesn't really matter which service you use.
So why would cable based broadband benefit from other players? Service. An ambitious up
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2, Interesting)
Right now were I live there are 3 ISPs and 2 of them are about to go under because dsl is locked (other political reasons) and cable is overtaking the dial in subsciptions. In order for them to compete with high speed internet they would need the ability to go into an area like this. The one ISP that seems to be doin
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2)
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:4, Informative)
Even if bandwidth were an issue (which it isn't) it would be fairly easy to give multiple ISP's access to the infrastructure without impacting each other's bandwidth. The cable that runs into a subscribers house is divided into a bunch of channels. In my home town, channel 3 is ABC, 6 is NBC, 11 is Fox, etc. To get cable modem to work over the cable plant you need two things to happen:
Where I live, there are three ISP's running on the local cable plant. They are all running on the same two channels because there's more than enough bandwidth to accomodate them. But if there weren't it would be an easy matter to allocate a couple of unused channels to one or more ISPs and effectively double the total available bandwidth on the system.
Re:If the cable bandwidth is shared (Score:2, Informative)
Always a downside (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Always a downside (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm really tired of hearing this slippery-slope argument of liberal outlets being eliminated if the government regulated the media infrastructure. Although there is always the chance of funny-business(TM) once the government gets involved, it's highly unlikey they would move to overtly violate first ammendment rights. If they did, the media itself (even conservative media) would be quick to create a ru
This isn't a liberal thing (Score:2)
The truth is, that this type of regulation is not going to affect content such as this much at all. The original poster does have his tinfoil hat on. But I resent you calling this a liberal issue when most liberals would in fact approve of it. Original poster was most likely a troll in fact.
Re:Always a downside (Score:2)
No actually they are out to get us. The only reason they haven't succeeded is they are out to get each other as well.
Assuming people aren't out to get you won't get you very far in NY.
Fedreralzation of almost anything is a prelude to failure. The "conservitive" Repulicans used to believe that. Remember states rights? Let dumb states make dumb deceisions, and smart ones succeed?
Re:Always a downside (Score:2, Interesting)
the government controls alot and we still have freedom to do what we like, just quit with the stupid idea that the government is there to censor. In reality the government dosen't care much about anything we do, as long as we go to war when they need us and we pay our taxes they could care less what we do.
Police and other authorities are only there so that everyone will feel safe. Freedom to do what you like w
you forgot wiretaps (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea yea, not guilty, nothing to hide. There's nothing illegal about your girlfriend sending you naked pictures, or your porn subscription to youngfatfux.com, but lots of things we do/say day to day are potentially very embarassing. And what about that whole 'anonymity' thing? Why
Anal Probes (Score:3, Funny)
MPAA and CSS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and what bias do you want? Corporate or government? Are the networks fair and balanced now?
Re:Always a downside (Score:4, Insightful)
While I certainly understand the concern about government censorship, if I'm not mistaken in this case we're talking about the government forcing the companies to allow other companies to use their pipes. While this may or may not be fair, there will be compensation (obviously the companies using the pipes will pay), and it should force competition... which is a Very Good Thing for the above reasons. And it doesn't seem likely to me that this type of regulation would cause government censorship... (the reclassification as "telecommunications" would allow government spying, but that's not really anything new.)
Re:Always a downside (Score:4, Interesting)
Thisw is very typical in many large to small towns.... Metro areas like detroit and chicago that have more than 1 cable company can't charge these kickbacks as they know that the fed's would be all over them.
many times a cable rate increase is attached to the city increasing their kickback amount demanded from the calbe company. but most times It's trying to increase profitability.
The first step in making things better is to fight any franchise kickbacks your local community is getting out of the cable company and any unfair laws that allow them to have a monoply and not allow competition to come in.
Re:Always a downside (Score:2)
Maybe, but telcos definitely have to (many states regulate pricing, require certain level of service for remote areas etc. etc. etc). And developers sometimes have to pay for infrastructure and/or maintenance costs, for new malls. The concept is hardly unique to cable cos.
I do agree in that kickbacks should be eliminated, even more so to prevent unfair competition b
Re:Always a downside (Score:2)
Re:Always a downside (Score:2)
But probably "business as usual" in many places.
Re:Always a downside (Score:2)
RUN!!!
Re:Always a downside (Score:1)
More bad news. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More bad news. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More bad news. (Score:2)
Yes, among other things. Like stopping crime by getting wire-taps on criminals. This does happen to be an area of interest for the FBI. Most of them could give a shit about somebody downloading the latest pop album.
Nationalize it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nationalize it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nationalize it (Score:2)
More like the railroads have to carry others' cars (Score:2)
At one time there were hundreds of small railroads, many of which owned only a single line from PointA to PointB. Their anticompetitive tactics often included predatory pricing, delay of competitors' shipments and outright refusal to carry a competitor's engines or cars. Companies with a monopoly on routes important to others sometimes charged 10X the go
Faster service? (Score:3, Interesting)
The downside of open access (Score:5, Interesting)
In Austin there are three cable "ISPs": RoadRunner, Earthlink, and a local one whose name I forgot. Since they all use RR's physical plant, I choose RR since there's only one company to call and one company to blame.
The only solution to this appears to be structural separation (where the company that owns the wires is not allowed to be an ISP), but this has its own problems (like it would probably be more expensive).
Re:The downside of open access (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, my In-Laws live in Tacoma, WA, where the city has a cable system in direct competition with Comcast. They subscribe to the city system, and have their choice of three ISPs for high-speed internet. The city (the folks who own the wires) is not one of them. We, on the other hand, have Comcast (alas, w
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
They must really want me to watch American Idol. They'll get no such pleasure out of me.
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
No, it's $39.95 PLUS the $15-20 for basic cable, thereby costing more.
So which is it? At first you're saying that you're actually paying more because you don't have basic cable, then you're saying that basic cable would be an extra $15-20.
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
That's a good deal. I have comcast internet service without cable TV service. And of course, there is zero competition in my area (unless you consider sattelite to be competition).
My bill is $55/month.
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
Just so you know, American Idol is on network television....you know, the public broadcast airwaves. That's where most of the crap lies these days. If you like to watch a little TV now and then and actually see something worthwhile, the only way that's going to happen is with cable.
Bragging about not watching TV is so 90's. Get over yourself.
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
FYI, what happened was the city decided to string fiber optic throughout the town to read the electric meters. Since they were going to run the fiber anyway, using it for cable TV and broadband internet was just frosting on the cake, so to speak. This wouldn't have happened if they weren't going to run the fiber anyway. And it's only economical because of the density yo
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
-prator
Re:The downside of open access (Score:3, Interesting)
> and a local one whose name I forgot.
Grande.
What you say about DSL is true. They really are Keystone Cops operations.
I live in the Austin city limits. My house was built in 1978. I've been waiting for DSL as an option since 1998 but still can't get it. I figure I never will.
I remember when Southwestern Bell used to run ads that went something like, "Who do you want to trust your data to? A cable TV company, or the telephone company,
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
Telstra Retail actually has to go through the same painfull channel every other ISP goes through to get their connections, not favourites (in theory at least).
The futility of regulation (Score:2, Interesting)
Once you have pipe competition, then there is a market, and no government regulation is needed. The pipes can then
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
I agree, and personally would like to see this even for telcos. The company owning the physical lines would be run more like a public utility.
The only problem with the approach that I can see is the probability that this utility will have no incentive to run in anything but a maintenance mode. They're not going to roll fiber out to every home, for example. What would be the point? They can't actually sell a service over it.
I'm not sure I a
Re:The downside of open access (Score:2)
One solution that has been suggested is to offload the risk to the customer. Want fiber to your home? Pay the $2,000 for the utility to install it.
Cable vs Phone (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cable vs Phone (Score:3, Interesting)
Double-edged sword (Score:5, Informative)
Don't knock competition. I'd love competition in the local loop, and you guys really have no idea just how lucky you are to even have a choice of cable or DSL.
But, on the other hand, you have a ruling which allows in the thugs of the Department of Justice. And that is a huge down side. We're all familiar with the stories of the various barely-legal taps that FBI have been indulging in under the Patriot Act. I'd be terrified at the idea that they could use that same bullshit legislation to place sniffers onto a shared medium with my 'net traffic on it.
Still, that's a good market - Start a cable ISP that does customer-to-company encryption. That way the Fibbies can't sniff the traffic off the wire, they have to go to the trouble of getting a warrant and sniffing off a switch at your office.
Of course, if Shrub gets elected again you can be sure that such an ISP model would be out-lawed - Entirely on the grounds of fighting terrorism, obviously.
Re:Double-edged sword (Score:2)
You mean like the encryption in every DOCSIS cable modem?
10/100 over cable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:10/100 over cable? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:10/100 over cable? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:10/100 over cable? (Score:2, Informative)
just talking about this . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Ultimately, everyone will be better served by competition in this market. The main reason I wanted comcast was to receive the local cable access channel. Small producers like myself are budding every day. With fast data pipes, channels could proliferate. Companies like Atom Films, Project Greenlight and the like could offer premium subscription services.
In case the benefits of this aren't immediately obvious, let me add one feature the /. crowd can surely appreiciate -- cable porn. (yeah, yeah I know there's Spice and the like but this way, there could be an Indie Nudes or Suicide Girls Channel)
Ultimately, producers of content could market directly to consumers. Aggregators (like current channels) could make the process easier. Expect an explosion of creativity . . .
Re:just talking about this . . . (Score:2)
Of course, this could also pave the way for independent producers to make a living, or at l
Re:just talking about this . . . (Score:2)
But it should qualify for al-a-carte.
but good luck getting those bastards at comcast to go for it.
Anyone know if DTV offers a similar service anymore? They used to 3ish years ago...
Steven V.
Re:just talking about this . . . (Score:2)
Re:just talking about this . . . (Score:2)
But I thought... (Score:2, Interesting)
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think that maybe we all would have learned something after the DSL fallout earlier in the decade.
All well and good, but for infrastructure (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All well and good, but for infrastructure (Score:4, Informative)
Re:All well and good, but for infrastructure (Score:2)
Re:All well and good, but for infrastructure (Score:2)
Coablecos are not all the same. Even a multi-national sub-conglomerate greedy-pigheaded company might be nice to deal with every once in a while.
Re:All well and good, but for infrastructure (Score:2)
If not, then I'm getting my ADSL from thin air!
And they are very very good. Worth every penny I pay.
monopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sure that more than a few would say that is silly, but we already grant the baby bells a monopoly to guarentee 2-way communication. They are also regulated and pay heavy taxes. For tv, well, 2 major satellites systems are in place (echo and direct). By disallowing monopolies in cable, it will encourage a great deal more competition. I would like to see disney or warner take on Comcast (comcast makes Qwest look good; very hard to do).
bandwidth baby (Score:3, Funny)
I agree, imagine the impact this could have on modern bandwidth intensive technologies! [theonion.com]
Telecommunication Act of 1996 ?? (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, the broadband market should already be very well opened to competition through regulation. It's been many years since The Telecommunication Act of 1996 [fcc.gov] was passed to do open their markets. The question is why is it not working out like predicted? There are a few companies that are moving into very specific cable markets, like Knology [knology.com]. However, this act was supposed to open up all markets (telcomm, cable, wireless, satellite) to anyone who wanted to sell services over existing bandwidth.
The fact we aren't seeing more competition can only be explained (a) if there are no interested firms, (b) if existing customers are too apathetic to new/quality services, or (c) if the regulation of the act are not being enforced. Does anyone know how the regulations of this act have played out in the past eight years in corportate practice? The article seems to indicate that FCC has been dragging their feet enforcing at least the cable market.
As far as I can tell, the regulation of TA1996 should be more than adequate for competition, in theory. Maybe future regulation will be a federal push encouraging existing carriers to roll out broadband to rural locations, although most people have satellite out there.
Re:Telecommunication Act of 1996 ?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The boundary lines were drawn in all the wrong places.
After a promising start, competition in the DSL market has nearly dried up because the local telcos that own the wires in the streets have absolutely no incentive to cooperate in good faith with CLECs that compete with the telcos' own DSL services. Look at how they always phrase the subject in publi
Re:Telecommunication Act of 1996 ?? (Score:2)
Properly done, regulation still provides plenty of incentives for the regulated company to expand and improve its business.
Is a regulated monopoly more efficient and innovative than a true, competitive free market economy? Of course not, but that's an apples-vs-oranges
Re:Telecommunication Act of 1996 ?? (Score:2)
What isn't reasonable is for a telco to charge wholesale prices to CLEC DSL providers that are higher than the retail prices for the telco's own DSL services, and/or to drag their feet in providing c
Shared bandwidth and throttling (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it possible for cable companies to use some sort of demand based throttling ie., allow me to use as much bandwidth as my line/modem will allow until others begin to do the same? If the maximum possible bandwidth for my run is something like 45mb/s, allow me to use 20 of that until other people begin to use up the remaining 25.
Another example might be when I download ISOs. The first one d/l at ~345KB/s, when I go after the second one (different server), the first one drops down and the two seem to share the ~345KB/s, d/l at 165 and 180. When I went for the third one, they went down to ~115 each.
Could the cable companies set minimum thresholds to determine when to throttle high b/w users?
Re:Shared bandwidth and throttling (Score:2)
Has anyone thought of RF limitations? (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, your downstream is going to be in a 6mhz channel bandwidth (thats the size of a tv channel, bandwidth wise.) Typical downstream is going to use 64 QAM, which is ~5 bits per hz. Basically ~27-28 megabits in 1 - 6mhz space. Now, if you use 256 QAM, this increases, probably around the ballpark of ~38mhz (its late, I'm tired)
Now onto upstream. Docsis dictates either 16qam or QPSK (4 qam) for upstream rates. 16qam = 3.5 bits per hz, qpsk = 1.5 bits per hz. Keep in mind, distance can be a factor in this as well. (yes, its not just dsl anymore for distance limitations, never has been when its comes down to modulation.) So you're probably figuring, great. we have 9 megabits to play with right? Well, in transport, yes, but not with a cable modem system.
In Docsis 1.0, most you could have for an upstream channel size is 1.6 Mhz. 1.6 Mhz * 1.5 bits/hz is going to leave you with about ~2.5 megabits.
In Docsis 1.1, you get 16qam and ability for 3.2 mhz channel sizes, so that'll leave you with about ~8-10 megabits. Since you can only cram so-many channels into a 6mhz block for upstream, you end up being fairly limited. The only way this will substantially increase will be if Docsis 2.0 is deployed around. Docsis 1.1 and Docsis 2.0 are more fun creatures, crypto signed firmware files by manufacturers.
Now, if you can co-lo your own CMTS(s) you can do docsis 2. Otherwise, you'll be waiting for cox/comcast/rr/whoever to upgrade their gear. I think also starting with docsis 1.1, they can make provisions in the cable modem for what vlan you'll fall into in the config file, but guess what? It won't matter what provider you have at that point if they can't co-lo their own CMTS. We'll use cox for an example. If I just have bandwidth running to them and they setup config with specifics and I'm their competition, but we're using same wire, unless its allocated different frequencies, you'll be sharing your preferred ISP w/ everyone else who uses their own ISPs. The only thing you'll really see with is maybe some dropped prices (which I'd hope) and possibly more downstream speeds. Otherwise, there just isn't the bandwidth to support it unless theres a massive upgrade to docsis 2.0, good luck seeing that in the near future. Also, if you are a cable co and maintain a cable plant + head end, you probably don't want someone else to bring their equipment in that knows nothing about the cable network, much like telco, all this needs to be engineered correctly.
Re:Has anyone thought of RF limitations? (Score:2)
Most of your analysis is spot on. I can think of at least two problems you don't mention that are going to come up early and often with co-lo.
First, upstream bandwidth is a really scarce resource for most cable companies. It's already in use for the cable company's DOCSIS cable modem system, for RF return from set-top boxes for premium video services (PPV, VOD and the like), and in some cases for telephony service. Upstream bandwidth limitations will impose a d
Is it fair to the cable companies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, 3rd parties just get to walk in, and take advantage of everything that's been done with no effort and no risk.
Doesn't seem fair, or maybe I'm missing something.
How will this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable Specs (Score:2, Informative)
Doesn't matter if its in my area (Score:3, Insightful)