One for the music industry and then another one for a multi media conglomerate.
Gee, maybe this government's behind big business and not the consumer.

more or less means few choices to choose your isp and they can keep the prices high as they want ... Someday we will be able to vote on matters like this on the intermet, no wait then we wouldnt need somany politions!!!!

Taxpayer money generally is not used to install cable lines. The local government negotiates a franchise agreement with the cable company, where the cable company gets the right to put lines up on the poles in exchange for money, taxes, Public/Educational channels, etc. While there is some cost to the government, this is all covered by the taxes paid on the service and/or amounts paid/services provided under the franchise agreements.

The world has changed a lot since the initial decision concerning telcos. Back then, they were a strong monopoly, and there wasn't any alternatives. Today for broadband many areas have competition between cable and DSL, with wireless shaping up to compete in the future, and for video, you have satellite and soon the telcos are moving into the same market using their DSL or FTTH projects. With telephony you have your traditional telcos, your pure-VoIP providers, cable companies, and cellular service.

It's time to pull more of the regulations out of the communications industry as it becomes less and less monopolistic.

I think that my money, my fathers money payed. for them cable lines to be put in. i should have the right to chose what provider i want to go with. im from a small town that only has 1 cable provider. and its a cable co that i hate. i cant even hardly watch tv during my cable biz hours becuse i get feed back from the cable co. phone lines i can actualy hear the conversation over my tv when a customer calls my cable co. what can i do about this? NOTHING i have to suffer. i live in a apt so i have no choice in the matter if i want tv i have to use them the gov just said so. the only choice i have is to have tv or not to have tv. im really starting to think that i will have more freedom more rights in the UK now. im just waiting on some gov bill to tell me i cant use vonage and i have to use my cables voip network. that costs 15$ more a month and have to pay extra for stuff i get for free now. but i do kinda have a question.
tax payers payed for the cable lines to be put in.
if i decide to cancel my cable service but yet keep my cable internet how are they getting away with chargeing me extra to use the cable lines for internet? wouldnt that be the same as if my house is on a st. i should be able to charge a fee for driveing on the road next to my house?

What this decision means is that politicians can now tell you by law what you can and cannot install on your TV/computer. Those SAME cable lines were installed using TAXPAYER money in every market all over the country. God forbid a taxpayer have access to what HE paid for. Oy. The conservative Supreme Court (along with the republican Congress, President, and the mainstream media) hate science, and it only follows they hate technology. From stem cell research to morning after pills to evolution to P2P — it's all evil in their tiny ape brains. In almost every case, Pro Business = Anti-consumer.

Don't turn this into a political or religious argument, especially as your argument is completely wrong. Cable companies decide what you pay for in THEIR service, not Supreme Court-- SC just affirmed their right to run their own company. Your thinking is backwards--Conservatives want less government, not more, but that's beside the point.

Stem Cell Research and all that other irrelevant stuff is just that--irrelevant. If YOU want to pay for cable companies who use these ridiculously stupid marketing techniques then you send your money to those !@#$%^s, but I won't.

Everyone here seems to be missing the point. Forcing companies is not adding privilidges it's taking them away. I am a consumer not a businessman, and as a consumer I believe it is unethical and unlawful to force businesses into something unless it clearly violates existing law or someone's rights, and this does neither. Cable companies can distribute channels through water vapor for all I care, if you think it is wrong to waste water vapor then don't buy the service. (now, polluting public water sources is something that would warrent government action, but I digress.)

If you squish through the hippie banter, Z has a point... the cable lines throughout the country cost taxpayers some infrastructure costs and regulatory oversight.

Now granted, I don't know that cable line sharing has had a material impact on consumer choice and cost competition, but it does impede some of those possibilities.

The TEN COMMANDMENTS hang right over Wiliam Rehnquist's head; but god forbid that any other court room have the same public displays.

The phone company must share it's lines with competitors; but cable operators can protect their own selfish interests.

It's time for most of these old geezers to retire. Some of their hair brained opinions are clearly fascist, and in this case protect a corporate lobby. The private propery case smacks of the communist Soviet Union...

You are off topic, but since you brought it up, you are also wrong... they ruled in favor of the displays, at least, so long as they don't blatantly promote one religion in favor of another. The Ten Commandments, however, are part of Old Testament doctrine, which means they are both Jewish, Christian, and to some lesser degree Islamic.

..and how about Hindu, Buddist, atheist, and Druidic?

They were allowed to be displayed, not because they represented different spans of religion (remember separation of church and state?), but because they are basic moral principles any human should follow.

Yet another American decision in favor of corporate monopolistic control and against entrepreneurial innovation.

Basically you decided to not read any of this.

If you had read it, you'd see that the Supreme Court did what it usually likes to do -- allow industry to regulate itself.

"The [FCC] commissioners' decision appears to be the first step in an effort to reshape the way the commission regulates information service providers," the majority ruling stated. "That may be why it has tentatively concluded that DSL services provided by facilities-based telephone companies should also be classified solely as an information service."

In other words, because the FCC is already taking steps to level the playing field by reclassifying DSL as an "information service" like cable lines, the Supreme Court has no desire to force changes on the industry that would in essence be moving backwards.

Yep, and charge us whatever they want..

Monopolistic control? Did other providers spend millions when the broadband networks were laid? There is no signs of a monopoly here just companies attempting to protect their investments...

Ehh... This ruling does not mean that there is no competition. There is still service being provided over POTS (ADSL) and now we have Direct way. The competition is present and that alone regulates prices in our open market economy.

What the Telco's are trying to do is Change from a POTS company to a Broadband services companies. Whats scary is that back in the late 90's the cable companys all rushed to get into the POTS buisness and the telecomm act of 96 made the telcos open their networks and called it UNE's which is Unbundleing the Network Element. Still enforced to this day. Why can not all the companies supplying the same services be regulated the same? Telco's provide the same services Cable companies do. Television / Internet / and voice. When VoIP and IP television become main services who will be the major players? all the Cable companies with there massive networks. My point is Honda vs GM they build cars and in diffrent ways and offer different options..yet regulated the same. Why can not the Companies offering Broadband services be the same way?

Exactly!

Why not?

Because GM didn't lay out the method for delivery of its products just so the government could mandate that HONDA be allowed to utilize the same railroad track that GM spent millions or billions to deploy.

If I lay fiber across the US to capture a market share, I shouldn't have someone else come along with a $5/Month lower cost and take my customers away after I did the hard work.

Cable companies who brought their product to the doorsteps of their customers SHOULD have the right to allow passage of data across their network and charge for it or not allow it.

You'll not even notice a change. But it makes for good news because it's the Supreme Court! Have you heard anything from them until recently? Suddenly they wake up so they can appear to have been very busy... reading.