Court Rules F.C.C. Erred in Decision on Net Access

So difficult to establish a rational national policy when disruptive communications technologies create market opportunities. The FCC and courts have always been at odds over the competitive rules of the game. In the long run, little or no regulation is probably the best approach, but who will solve the dilemma of rural availability vs. urban, business vs. residence pricing, and all the other 'inequities' resulting from deployment schedules and market forces?

Dare I say regulators??
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++


AN FRANCISCO, Oct. 6 — In a setback for the Federal Communications Commission, a federal court issued a ruling on Monday that may force cable companies to share their high-speed Internet, or broadband, networks with competing Internet service providers.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, found that the F.C.C. erred in an earlier ruling that effectively absolved cable companies of any obligation to make their lines accessible to competitors.

Despite claims of victory by the cable industry's competitors, telecommunications lawyers said the implications of the 39-page ruling might not be clear for some time. They said the decision did not specifically require cable companies to lease their lines to competitors. Rather, the court ruled that the F.C.C. was wrong in the way it categorized cable broadband services for regulatory purposes.

In March 2002, the commission ruled that it would regulate cable broadband providers as "information services," a definition that applies to companies that process data. Companies that fall under that definition are subject to much less stringent regulation.

The F.C.C.'s approach toward broadband regulation — for both cable companies and telephone companies — is to permit the major players to build their high-speed Internet infrastructure without requiring them to open their networks to competitors. The F.C.C. has said the best way to expand deployment is to give the big companies incentive to invest in new networks.

The appellate court, however, found that cable broadband service providers were in part providing "telecommunications services," a definition that could subject them to the greater obligations of "common carriers" under federal law.