The semantic battle over what to call cable broadband looms large on the industry horizon. Information Service? Telecommunications service? The final decision will be monumental.

Santa Monica based Brand X Internet decided to fight the FCC's 2002 classification of cable broadband as an "information service", which frees the industry from allowing open-access to competitors; among other regulatory hurdles long faced by the bells. Brand X was joined in their battle against the classification by the State of California and the Consumer Federation of America. Waiting in the wings are the bells, who wouldn't be horrified to see cable face regulation and equipment sharing obligations.

After one of our reports on the ruling triggered the now standard debate between cable industry incumbents and competitors, Jim Pickrell, president of Brand X Internet, arrived in our forums to share his thoughts on the ruling:

"The FCC itself is anti-competition. They tried to exempt the telephone companies and the cable companies from the competitive obligations of the Telecommunications act by declaring that broadband is not a telecommunications service. We disagree. We don't think the FCC should be able to change laws by redefining a word like telecommunications. If a law is going to be changed, that's a job for our elected officials, not bureaucrats. We appealed, and the courts agreed."

While Brand X stands alone on the cover-page of the appeal document itself, their victory brings them no shortage of friends among cable competitors looking to gain access to cable networks; and probably no shortage of enemies. The Ninth Circuit Court has no shortage of conservative critics either, and the Court's rulings are frequently overturned by the Supreme Court as this FindLaw.com analysis recently explored.

With so many opponents working diligently to squash the recent reversal, some believe optimism in regards to the decision is highly premature. Analysts charge the decision will be a mire of uncertainty at best, or squashed at worst; either outcome being primarily of benefit to the incumbents.

Pickrell says he has spent $50,000 on the lawsuit already, and likely faces considerably tougher costs as the ruling is appealed by the FCC. However he's optimistic that the ruling won't be overturned by the Supreme Court, and says he has little choice in whether to participate in the battle.

"It's easy for them because Michael Powell doesn't have to personally write a check for the legal bill - but I do. Unfortunately, the choice is to either pay it or close. If we allow him to shut off our access to cable and phone lines, then consumers lose choice, and we're out of business."

The chess pieces are certainly being moved. This week finds the cable industry requesting a rehearing en banc in the Brand X case (pdf link to petition from Jim Baller). Likewise the FCC made their move last week, filing their own petition requesting a new hearing on The Ninth Circuit Court's decision. The next six months could find the issue taken to the Supreme Court.