By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld Part of the ECT News Network
07/01/05 5:00 AM PT
If the Supreme Court had ruled that cable companies must open their lines, that would have given firms like Brand X and Earthlink a government-mandated advantage in what would otherwise be a market-based negotiation. And when government starts picking winners and losers in the marketplace, consumers suffer.
Is Your Website Killing Customer Confidence? Your Website's privacy policy can be a key factor in a customer's decision to do business with you, and it is vital to ensuring you don't run afoul of your online legal and regulatory responsibilities. Need more reasons? Read on.
The United States Supreme Court this week ruled against Brand X, a small California company that sells Internet access. This ruling is good for consumers and marks the beginning of what could be much-needed reform in broadband policy.
In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court overturned a decision that would have forced cable companies to share their networks with competitors, including Internet access providers. This type of "forced access" is mandated for telecom companies under the 1996 Telecom Act, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided that these arcane rules don't apply to cable.
Information vs. Telecommunication
The FCC's reasoning said that since cable companies are classified as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service," that means they are not subject to the '96 Act's forced access rules. Brand X and other broadband re-sellers didn't like that idea, so they filed in federal court.
There are many reasons that the Brand X loss is a positive development, but perhaps the most obvious is that it keeps market negotiations alive.
If the Supreme Court had ruled that cable companies must open their lines, that would have given firms like Brand X and Earthlink a government-mandated advantage in what would otherwise be a market-based negotiation. And when government starts picking winners and losers in the marketplace, consumers suffer. Brand X can still re-sell high speed broadband access on cable lines, but in order to do so, it will have to play by market rules, just like other businesses.
There's also the investment issue. If companies think that their competitors will get to use their infrastructure at prices that don't reflect market realities, they tend to stop investing, especially in an area as costly and high-risk as broadband. That's what happened in the telecom space and the reason why cable still outpaces DSL by a significant margin.
Fair and Balanced Market
Brand X and some self-designated consumer advocates attempted to spin the Court's ruling as anti-competitive, but nothing could be further from the truth. Brand X is a re-seller of cable service, not an owner of the lines. Therefore, it does not really introduce more competition into the market; it just looks like it if the retail vs. ownership structure is unclear -- and to most people, it is. But now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the FCC's deregulatory direction, perhaps things will turn around in the entire broadband space.
In 2002, the FCC began a proceeding that could reclassify DSL as an information service, and the new FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin, appears disposed to see such a change occur. Indeed, after the Brand X ruling, Martin issued a statement saying that the decision provides "a framework for broadband that can be applied to all providers."
The current regulatory landscape is a mess when viewed from the standpoint of a "level playing field," so Martin's comments are encouraging to those who want to see true competition that leads to consumer benefit. And the future already holds much promise.
Accelerating Access
Now that cable, telecom, satellite, wireless and broadband over power lines all compete to provide broadband and related services, the wheels of innovation are turning at incredible speeds.
For instance, a recent presentation of SBC's Project Lightspeed demonstrated how users will be able to watch television programs over the Internet at different angles simultaneously and even re-play real time events. Consumers will also be able to use that interface to upload and share photos while talking on Internet-based phones.
It's tough to predict what other innovations the future holds, but already Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) and Nortel are saying that there will be greater broadband spending as a result of the Brand X decision. What isn't hard to figure out is that industry will only work to provide the benefits of innovation if investment and regulatory climates are right.
The Supreme Court's decision on Brand X probably went unnoticed by the majority of broadband consumers, but its effects will not. In a single decision, the high court has helped to put America on the right path towards real broadband reform.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
my understanding of "forced access" is not that is an "arcane rule" but ...
Next Article in Tech Buzz
Open Source and the Legend of Linksys June 28, 2005
People want to know what, exactly, can they get away with. To answer this, it's important to understand how violations of the GPL appear on the enforcement radar screen, so here is how: Somebody rats on you, usually your competitors or disgruntled employees.
Related Stories
Broadband Battles June 03, 2005
Cities all over the country, including San Francisco, Philadelphia, and New York, are moving towards running their own broadband networks. They claim that such networks would facilitate economic activity and make the cities cooler places to live. The cities also argue that the private sector isn't moving fast enough to deploy technology. The irony here should be evident.
Blimps, Broadband and Bosses April 29, 2005
Quality, service, convenience, aesthetics, and other issues all come into play when consumers make decisions. When regulators leave markets alone, businesses compete on all these levels. But perhaps it's not that Commissioner Brown and his staff don't like markets per se, maybe it's just that they feel markets need government help.
Free Broadband? Metro Mistake April 01, 2005
The communications industry is a high-risk area of investment with constantly changing technology and expensive labor and material costs. It is difficult enough for private industry to keep up with the latest developments, let alone lethargic government bureaucracies. This weakness puts millions of taxpayer dollars at risk.
Broad Thinking on Broadband February 11, 2005
In today's digital world, speed is key to competition and progress. When a regulatory agency takes four years to approve a lease request for the rollout of new services, it is effectively killing economic growth and jobs. That's an embarrassment to the Golden State and must be corrected immediately.
Related News Alerts
More by Sonia Arrison
How to Solve the Net Neutrality Issue October 28, 2009
Regulation by the U.S. government is not the way to keep the Internet neutral. A better approach would be self-regulation. Now is the time for ISPs to support an independent, private body to monitor neutrality issues and forestall the possibility of the FCC "managing competition" on the Internet.
FCC's Genachowski Not Neutral on New Net Rules September 30, 2009
The proponents of Net neutrality say it's necessary for a free and open Internet, but history doesn't support that argument. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, for example, was supposed to bolster competition. Instead, by compelling companies to share their infrastructures, it reduced incentives for improvement. In the long run, it failed.
What Has President Obama Done for Silicon Valley? August 28, 2009
President Obama's appointments of Silicon Valley outsiders were only the first indications that his administration would be less than friendly to the high-tech industry, despite campaign promises. Since then, it has shown an inclination toward tight regulatory practices and away from transparency.