[ale] Comcast Caps Data at 250G/Month

[Brian Pitts]

aaron wrote:
> On Sunday 07 September 2008 00:25, James Sumners wrote:
>> How can you call Comcast a monopoly? You might be able to make the
>> case that it is part of an oligopoly[1], but not a monopoly. There are
>> plenty of alternatives out there.
> 
> So who, besides Commiecast, can utilize the coax wires that we
> allow the company to run through our public rights of way??

Bingo. It didn't have to be this way...

When ISPs first began selling Internet access to the public, the only
widespread way of delivering it was through the telephone network. The
companies operating the telephone network are subject to mandatory
regulation by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, under Title
II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 because they are classified as
common carriers. A common carrier is defined as as "any person engaged
as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign
communications...” The two main reasons for considering telephone
companies as common carriers are that they serve the public
indiscriminately and often hold a monopoly position. Only the
transmission service, referred to as a basic or telecommunication
service, is subject to the common carrier rules of Title II. Any
services operated by telephone companies that “manipulate, store, or
alter information”, called enhanced or information services, are
regulated under the FCC's more limited Title I authority. Under this
system, a clear distinction was made between the infrastructure data
traveled over and the data itself. Title II rules ensure the right to
attach equipment to the network and open access to the infrastructure
for any services. This allowed independent ISPs to buy lines from the
telephone company, attach their equipment, and sell Internet service.

Starting around the year 2000, dial-up Internet access became
increasingly supplanted by broadband access. The two chief methods of
offering broadband access are a technology that utilizes previously
unused frequencies on the telephone network called Digital Subscriber
Line, or DSL, and the cable installed by cable television companies.
Telecommunications companies lobbied the FCC as it was deciding how to
regulate broadband; they persuaded the commission to avoid classifying
DSL or cable as telecommunications services that would be subject to
Title II regulation. When ISPs requested to offer Internet service using
the cable companies' infrastructure, the cable companies refused. In
2002 the FCC validated this refusal by issuing a declaratory ruling
stating “that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is
properly classified as an interstate information service, not as a cable
service, and that there is no separate offering of telecommunications
service”. Numerous ISPs filed suit to contest this classification in
National Cable & Telecommunications Association et al. v. Brand X
Internet Services et al. On June 27, 2005 the Supreme Court decided that
the FCC's decision was a reasonable interpretation of the
Telecommunications Act which must be deferred to by the courts under the
Chevron doctrine. On August 5, 2005  the FCC gave DSL regulatory parity
with cable by also declaring it an information service.

-Brian