3 ms·

I can't wait until we finally get around to relegating broadband providers as common carriers. At the very least, we need a broadband version of Glass-Steagall

I can't wait until we finally get around to relegating broadband providers as common carriers. At the very least, we need a broadband version of Glass-Steagall, which forces ISPs, cable companies, and content providers to be separate entities. The current situation is laughably awful for consumers. I can't imagine a single informed customer actually supporting the status quo.

nine_k 13y ago
Among other things it would kill Google Fiber.
- brubaker 13y ago
  That is fine in the short and long term if it means splitting the content distribution from the broadband access providers.
- bluthru 13y ago
  In theory I still don't like the idea of a content provider owning infrastructure.
WaterSponge 13y ago
Not going to happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Association_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunic... Just wait till Aereo gets screwed in their Supreme Court case. Then we really will be. In fact no matter which way they rule in Aereo's case we are screwed. If they rule in favor of Aereo the content companies (Comcast owns NBC) will just start taking content "cable only".
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  I think the grandparent is saying we need a new law to replace the current one. The courts having upheld a decision on what the current law says doesn't really preclude the passing of a new law - the only time court decisions trump legislation is when the Constitution comes into play.
- raldi 13y ago
  Fantastic. Just imagine what we could with all the prime spectrum they'd be releasing.
- beedogs 13y ago
  Surely that would trigger a Sherman prosecution.
- pdubs 13y ago
  Unless I'm misreading this decision it merely upholds the FCC's right to classify ISPs as "information services" instead of "telecommunication services" because the Telecommunications Act is a bit fuzzy and leaves a lot up to the FCC. The FCC could decide to reclassify them as telecommunications services due to industry changes and I believe that this case would serve as precedent for them to legally do so.

nine_k 13y ago

Among other things it would kill Google Fiber.

brubaker 13y ago
That is fine in the short and long term if it means splitting the content distribution from the broadband access providers.
bluthru 13y ago
In theory I still don't like the idea of a content provider owning infrastructure.

WaterSponge 13y ago

Not going to happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Association_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunic... Just wait till Aereo gets screwed in their Supreme Court case. Then we really will be. In fact no matter which way they rule in Aereo's case we are screwed. If they rule in favor of Aereo the content companies (Comcast owns NBC) will just start taking content "cable only".

bunderbunder 13y ago
I think the grandparent is saying we need a new law to replace the current one. The courts having upheld a decision on what the current law says doesn't really preclude the passing of a new law - the only time court decisions trump legislation is when the Constitution comes into play.
raldi 13y ago
Fantastic. Just imagine what we could with all the prime spectrum they'd be releasing.
beedogs 13y ago
Surely that would trigger a Sherman prosecution.
pdubs 13y ago
Unless I'm misreading this decision it merely upholds the FCC's right to classify ISPs as "information services" instead of "telecommunication services" because the Telecommunications Act is a bit fuzzy and leaves a lot up to the FCC. The FCC could decide to reclassify them as telecommunications services due to industry changes and I believe that this case would serve as precedent for them to legally do so.