CNET también está disponible en español. Don't show this again. The 118-page paper endeavors to lay out the consequences and benefits of calling a service such as @Home a "cable operator.". But the staff paper's findings aren't the last word: Any changes that would reclassify cable Net access and services would be subject to a lengthy rule-making process that includes public comment as well as approval by the commission. The paper serves as a "discussion of the regulatory classification issue for Internet over cable systems, and the related common carrier issues. [It is] intended to map the contours of the legal and policy issues surrounding the clash of new, advanced capabilities such as the Internet with the old regulatory framework," states the paper's author, Barbara Esbin, who is the associate chief of the FCC's Cable Services Bureau.
The report comes at a time when mergers and acquisitions and the blending of digital technologies are leading the charge toward convergence and new business markets, Case in point: In June, long distance giant AT&T said it would pay $48 billion for presidio clear + glitter case for apple iphone x and xs - clear/glitter/bella pink the second-largest cable company, Tele-Communications Incorporated, which owns a 42 percent stake in @Home, Each of these companies, however, is regulated differently now, with @Home being the least hindered, The FCC's future treatment of cable Net access companies will be closely watched, And the stakes are high, because some in the industry fear that saddling the virgin broadband Net services with regulations could stifle the rollout of high-speed access..
For instance, the report says that under the FCC's rules for frame relay services, cable companies could be forced to offer their Net access networks at wholesale prices to online service competitors such as America Online. It is well known that cable companies and services don't want to share their high-speed networks. If services such as @Home and Road Runner were dubbed "cable," the companies may not have to unbundle their networks under the current regulatory framework. "Our Net access is way faster than what the telephone companies can offer, so allowing them to get on our network would be damaging to our business on the Internet side," said Ellen East, a spokeswoman for Cox Communications, which has spent $4 billion to upgrade its network and now has about 34,000 Net access customers.
"It is a competitive advantage," she added, "Clearly presidio clear + glitter case for apple iphone x and xs - clear/glitter/bella pink our network is superior--and we would like to hang on to that.", Companies such as @Home and Road Runner already pay "franchise" fees to cities, which consist of up to 5 percent of the annual gross revenues for those services, But the FCC paper states the companies would only have to continue paying those fees if they were classified as cable operators, In contrast, if they were classified as Internet services, they would no longer be subject to them..
"If Internet-based services offered by cable operators over their systems are treated as cable services, they would become subject to any franchise fees imposed for cable services under the relevant franchise agreement," the paper states. "On the other hand, if these Internet-based services were not treated as cable services, then cable Internet-based services would certainly not be subject to cable franchising fees.". Cable rates are subject to some regulation, but those rules probably would not apply to the Net services they provide.
Copyright © 2020 www.acquadifirenze.it. All Rights Reserved