DSL providers hope to mimic cable's win

Cable companies won a major victory on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court blessed a deregulatory approach that immunized them from onerous federal regulations.

Now the political spat likely to play out over the next few years will center on whether telephone companies' rival DSL (digital subscriber line) technology should enjoy the same immunity.

Tom Tauke, Verizon Communications' vice president for public affairs, said his company would press for the federal government "to treat all competing broadband services alike."

"The Supreme Court recognized that cable modems are an information service, and this should allow broadband to continue to grow in an unregulated environment," said Jeff Campbell, director of technology and communications policy at Cisco Systems. "We now look forward to the FCC giving DSL similar treatment."

special coverage
Broadband donnybrook

Supreme Court rules that cable companies do not need to share
their lines.

In Monday's majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court said that companies offering high-speed Internet access over cable lines do not have any legal obligation to provide rivals like Brand X or EarthLink with access to their wires. That will create an additional incentive for cable operators to invest more in their infrastructure, according to many economists.

Two avenues of attack are available for Verizon, SBC Communications and other former Bell companies that dislike their second-class status: the Federal Communications Commission and Congress.

The FCC currently is mulling whether DSL should be regulated as a "telecommunications service"--and thus subject to the weighty stack of regulations designed for the analog telephone system of the early 1900s--or as an "information service" that is relatively free from government control.

Certain types of DSL should be treated with a light touch, the agency has tentatively concluded. But any definitive ruling will have to wait until a successor to FCC Commissioner Michael Powell is confirmed by the Senate, a move that would again hand the Republicans a 3-2 majority.

Also, Congress is beginning preliminary discussions about revisiting the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which would provide a natural vehicle for a formal declaration of DSL's status.

"We hope to have a bill moved on this by the end of the year," said a spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "The aim of the bill is to achieve a more fair, balanced regulatory treatment of similar telecommunications services that happen to travel over different wires."

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., signaled that the DSL question would be part of broader telecommunications legislation: "It is time that these laws reflect the sweeping changes technology has brought to this critical sector of our economy. Revising the communications laws will remove barriers to innovation."

Any attempt to extend the same regulatory immunity to DSL is sure to draw squawks of protest from liberal advocacy groups and their allies, which quickly slammed the Supreme Court's 6-3 opinion as "anticonsumer."

"Today's ruling is both anticonsumer and anticompetition," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on a telecommunications subcommittee. Using language that seems to place him at odds with the Bells, Markey pledged to "ensure that national broadband policy reflects the open architecture model of the Internet and remains a medium friendly to innovation, entrepreneurial activity and consumer-centric communications."

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.

[jrzshor]

"free" market

I always find it so "american" to have multibillion dollar companies
seek refuge in laws that protect their "free" markets from all
competition. Yes, I want to pay through the nose for cable or DSL
beacuse I believe that said companies will re-invest (after stock
options, incentive bonuses and other "expenses") monies into
upgrading my service to make it better, faster etc. Maybe I can get
5 megs of speed by 2010.

[Earl Benser]

Let's see now....

The Telco supplies the wires, the distribution nodes, the DSl
interfaces, the maintenance, and usually provides free
installation. And then I can use any portal/email service I desire.

Now, a competitor wants to be my DSL supplier, but doesn't
want to pay for the wires, the distribution nodes, the DSl
interfaces, the maintenance, and might provide free installation.
And they will claim to do it better and cheaper.

Excuse me while I laugh..........

If Brtand X andor Earthlink want to compete in the DSL market,
fine. Just string their own networks, hopefully fibre optics, and
give me gigabit internet access at a nice low price.

Otherwise, quit trying to be a parasite on the existing DSL net.

[newerawisp]

NO PLACE FOR CABLES OR DSL

People are so easily deceived. As for as the accessing of Internet is concerned there is no reason people should accept either as a viable method. FCC is trying its best to promote Wireless Internet services (WISPs). It has even set up to promote WISPs. Last May (May 2004) this taskforce set up an inquiry as to whether FCC provides enough broadband spectrum for the use of WISPs especially for use in the rural area. There were some 40 original comments and a fewer number of reply comments. I was a respondent to this Inquiry for original Comments and reply Comments.

Not one respondent talked about the use of Broadband Sppectrum for the use of Wisps. All the respondents taled about how they provide wireless internet services in rural areas through the setting up of Wi-Fi hot spots or how they speed up data transfer rates. Yet none of these services involve the use of broadband spectrums like those having frequencies of 1900MHz or above. As a matter of fact Nextel was providing its cellphone service by the use of 800MHz spec trum. It found a gimmick to get the FCC to trade this spectrum for broadband spectrum 1950MHz+ by saying that its operations cause interference for emergency personal services. This way it did not have to bid for the spectrum it received from the FCC.

Verizon and other baby bells use the services of superstars like James Earl Jones and other heavy weight superstars to paddle the DSL and fiber optic based Broadband internet service. Yet people would like to avail of the superfast Internet service if they could. They own the cellphones and these cellphones are all they need to avail of the superfast Internet Service.

Yet, presently this superfast vservice is a myth. All the excess speed of all the methods of delivering internet service over the conventional internet service only increases the idle time of the personal Computer central processors between the ticks because of the need to wait for the surfing instructions due to the lack of multitasking and nanotechnology.

This point is made at

http://wirelessera.rediffblogs.com

[Earl Benser]

A review of network theory...

... is needed here. Especially in the area of load versus users.