What's a court to do?

Alright, I admit it: The Cranky Economist is flummoxed by this one, from PC World. Now that hunting season for that rare beast emergingus consensae is over, the Supreme Court will turn its creative eyes to telecom regulation. The FCC, with support from the Bush administration, has ruled that cable internet services are not subject to telephone-line regulations that require the owners of phone lines to share the lines with their competitors. That means that if Comcast, in its great wisdom, should wire up my Cranky Neighborhood for Cranky Cable Broadband, Comcast would maintain the right to a monopoly on that line.

The problem is that there are compelling arguments on each side. There's an obvious case for striking down the original FCC decision, thus allowing multiple ISPs to compete on the lines. It would drive down prices for the service by creating a competitive marketplace. And my instincts run strongly against the idea of government sponsoring a monopoly in anything.

And yet. The administration might be on to something when it argues that the lines will never be run if the cable companies can't be sure they'll reap some rewards from their efforts. America is behind the curve when it comes to running broadband to businesses and households, and that process will only get slower if there's an uncertain return on the investment.

Do I have an opinion? Of course. Just not a very forceful one. For now, I'm going with my gut and saying that we should allow competition over these lines. But I'm open to suggestions. Comments, anyone?