Supreme Court Seems Skeptical About Cable Claims In Brand X

from the tricky-situation dept

While most of the Supreme Court attention yesterday went to the Grokster case, the Justices also heard the Brand X case, which was an appeal on a ruling from a few years back, saying that the FCC was wrong in classifying cable broadband services as "information services" instead of "telecom services" -- and, thus, opening up the cable companies to forced line sharing rules. While it might not mean anything, the initial reports suggest that the Justices were skeptical of the cable companies claims, and seemed to wonder why cable broadband and telco broadband were being treated differently. Unfortunately, the case isn't quite as straightforward as it might appear. The reason the telcos have line sharing rules in the first place is because they came by their copper lines through the breakup of a government granted monopoly. These were systems built with government backing (though, as some have pointed out, the cost of those lines should be next to nothing by now). Most of the cable systems were built by private companies. That's a big distinction, and really is at the heart of this case. While both sides claim that competition will be stifled if the other side wins, that seems unlikely (either way). With the FCC leaning against line sharing, even if cable offerings are classified as telecom services, they might not be required to share lines. However the court decides, though, it is likely to influence many other FCC rulings that impact a variety of different services, such as VoIP -- since it will set up the regulatory framework by which the FCC can rule across both cable and DSL. If both are aligned, it should also play into how they regulate wireless broadband technologies as well. In other words, the specific decision may not have a direct impact right away, but the eventual consequences may be far reaching.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2005 @ 7:07pm

    It's still a monopoly

    I don't agree with Mike's casual dismissal of cable line sharing. The fact is that while private business laid the cable, cable companies are still granted a monopoly for their cable franchise in most parts of the US. Unless, and until, there are widely available alternatives to cable broadband (there are NOT where I live), cable companies should be treated as the monopoly they are and have some responsibility to share their bandwidth.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike (profile), 30 Mar 2005 @ 10:28pm

      Re: It's still a monopoly

      Actually, I agree with you. In cases where they have a government granted monopoly it's an issue that should be looked at.

      The real issue, though, is whether or not it really is a monopoly when there are other forms of competition out there. i.e., cable competes with DSL.

      So far, this looks more like an oligopoly, so perhaps the government should step in. I'm not taking sides on this one yet... it's a fairly complex issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    rebecca, 7 Apr 2005 @ 6:21am

    answering posted info.

    U idiot. what do u have against the FCC? even though the supreme court had ruld that out, your still complaining about it. it happened so long ago. just forget it and move on with your life, unless u don't have one. Just disregard the case and worry about something more recent.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.