pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| He's right about Brand X
Why should cable companies have to open up their privately owned and privately built networks? If Brand X wants access, they should get into some kind of line-sharing agreement with the cable companies or, gasp, actually build their own network.
You can't say that cable companies and phone companies should be regulated alike because the businesses are not the same. Phone companies are required to provide service to everyone, cable companies are not. Cable also is not subject to the stringent SLAs required of phone companies.
Thankfully this ruling came from the 9th Circus Court of Appeals so it will most likely be overturned.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
pa grape
Premium
join:2003-12-28
Columbus, OH | Re: He's right about Brand X - agree!
I agree with you here. If private companies are made to share there property with others, I would guess the upkeep and upgardes of the infrastructure would somewhat deteriorate. |
|
fgoldstein
join:2003-01-21
Newton Highlands, MA
·RCN CABLE
| Why would sharing bandwidth cause the property to deteriorate? "Foreign" bits on the wire would wear out the splices? Gimme a break!
The BrandX issue is more complicated than that. The telephone companies were given a monopoly in order to build networks for everyone to use, at regulated rates. That's what a common carrier does. They no longer have a legal monopoly, but it's not feasible for everybody to string parallel wire on the poles. BellSouth has petitioned the FCC for the right to kick all competing ISPs off of their DSL wire, which is a big fight right now (SBC, VZ and Q would of course get the same treatment).
But the cable companies were never asked to be common carriers. They added cable modem services with the assumption that they'd be considered self-provisioned ISPs. They've governed by somewhat different rules from telephone companies; among the differences is that cable companies pay a 5% (typical) franchise fee "off the top" to the municipality. Most courts and the FCC have agreed. The Ninth disagreed, and found "carriage" underneath the cable modem service, and want it offered to other ISPs. The risk here is that if cable is declared a common carrier, what about other self-provisioned ISPs? The guy who sticks an unlicensed wireless link on a rooftop to serve a neighborhood?
Stringing your own wire (fiber) is rarely a viable option. BrandX itself actually has strung fiber around its own neighborhood. But in most cities, the poles are crowded, making it extremely costly to add additional lines. (Each occupant needs a vertical foot "gain", or if none is free, it has to add a cross-arm, or even replace the pole with a bigger one.) And let's not even think about underground street-trenching construction.
It's hard to balance these interests. Powell, however, finds it easy -- he simply rules out ISPs and CLECs, period. Not the right answer. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by fgoldstein  :... among the differences is that cable companies pay a 5% (typical) franchise fee "off the top" to the municipality. more accurate to say the cable companies pass on a 5% fee to their customers. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to fgoldstein
said by fgoldstein :Stringing your own wire (fiber) is rarely a viable option. BrandX itself actually has strung fiber around its own neighborhood. But in most cities, the poles are crowded, making it extremely costly to add additional lines. So why is that anyone other than Brand X's problem? Why should the cable companies care at all and why should they be forced to share if Brand X doesn't have the cash to access these poles? If the cable companies had to pay someone else for access to these poles, then surely Brand X should be expected to do the same.
Again, this is simply an issue of private property. Brand X wants to force other companies to grant Brand X access to their private property. The government has no place doing this.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| said by pnh102 :Again, this is simply an issue of private property. Brand X wants to force other companies to grant Brand X access to their private property. The government has no place doing this. Except that in nearly all cases, "communications providers", telcos and cable cos alike, are using space that they do not privately own, to string their wires or whatever. That space is either owned by another private party, or by the public-at-large, which means that the owner has the right to demand concessions, or apply restrictions, on the use of that property. One of the restrictions, could be the legal requirement that they are required to share their lines with other communications-services companies.
So your right, it is a question of property, but in terms of easements granted through "public" spaces, the gov't has every right to make those line-sharing demands, on behalf of the people, who own the property that the private company is using to deliver their services and profit off of.
Or is it your view that private companies should be able to steal from citizens at will? |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| reply to fgoldstein
said by fgoldstein :Why would sharing bandwidth cause the property to deteriorate? "Foreign" bits on the wire would wear out the splices? Gimme a break! No, but as "Brand X" moves in and has to pay no upkeep cost for the devices on the lines, the incumbent cable provider has to layoff people and cut budgets on maintenance because they are making less money to maintain the system.
With the way the cable system is built, "Brand X" just can't come in and drop their own RF equipment in the mix and have it coexist with the existing infrastructure.
They will just be reselling the incumbent's infrastructure to their customers. Such as Earthlink does right now over Time Warner Cable. Earthlink doesn't have to maintain any part of the TWC infrastructure. |
|
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to VirtualLarry
said by VirtualLarry : which means that the owner has the right to demand concessions, They do, they lease the space from the owner. In return the owner lets them install and use their wire for whatever they want to do with it. Which one of the things is to not allow a competitor use the wire that they paid for, installed, maintains, and rents space for. |
|
fgoldstein
join:2003-01-21
Newton Highlands, MA
·RCN CABLE
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 : Again, this is simply an issue of private property. Brand X wants to force other companies to grant Brand X access to their private property. The government has no place doing this.
Well, I have not said that I favored Brand X's position, personally, in their case. I am very much on record as opposing the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers' petitions to be treated like cable companies, rather than as common carriers. Brand X argues that cable companies do what common carriers do and should be treated the same way. The ILECs agree, but in the opposite sense -- they want both to be NOT common carriers. The public interest demands common carriage. It is highly unrealistic to grant "propertarian" rights to common carriers to control what they do with their property. If the ILECs were not regulated, there would be no Internet: It was regulation that forced Ma Bell to allow "foreign attachments", like modems. (Or would you rather be renting a Model 103 300-bps modem for $25/month?) It was regulation that forced Ma Bell to allow "sharing and resale" of its leased lines: Before that rule, they flat-out refused to run leased data circuits between two different corporations, because "private lines" could only be for the exclusive use of one company. Anything else had to go dial-up, paying toll. Cable companies do pay a franchise fee -- yes, they're allowed to pass it along, which is rational since it's a cost of doing business -- which I suppose ostensibly covers the value of their rights of way. Telcos don't pay that, but do have an obligation of common carriage. Cable companies were not created to carry the Internet -- it's possible that if they were regulated as common carriers, they'd be much less interested in doing it. That's the legal situation in the USA. The Bells claim they need that incentive too, but that's absurd; they're the sole provider of wholesale access to ISPs, and have incredibly valuable plant. Canada, I will note, has different laws, and does impose something like common carriage (wholesale access at regulated rates for any ISP who wants in) on cable modems. If there were no common carriers, even this message board couldn't exist -- who would allow it on *their* wires? |
|
