|
|
Enron Mail |
Group --
Thought you might be interested in this article I picked up on "forced access." Lisa < NET ADVANTAGE - [Pittsburgh Post Gazette Editorial] Washington should < regulate access to the Web Monday, November 08, 1999 Pittsburgh < Post-Gazette How will most of us access the Internet in 10 years? Via < wireless technology? Satellites? Cable wire? DSL phone lines? Like most < smart people humbled by the rate of technological change, Federal < Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard does not know the < answer to that question. As a result, the commission is wary of treating < the cable industry, however promising its prospects, as the sole provider < of high-speed, broadband Internet access and thus deserving of a whole new < regulatory regime. Mr. Kennard knows how stifling that can be on a nascent < technology. Better for the federal government to allow competing channels < to the Internet to develop unimpaired, and intervene only when absolutely < necessary to ensure competition. Unfortunately, local regulators across < the country have been undermining this federal regulatory restraint by < imposing Internet-related burdens on cable companies at the municipal < level, egged on by a powerful lobbying alliance of regional phone < companies and Internet service providers. Ongoing negotiations to renew < the city's cable franchise agreement have made Pittsburgh the latest < ground zero in this ferocious and important battle to determine the future < of the nation's telecommunications policy. Pittsburgh City Council should < resist the lure of notoriety, take a pass, and recognize that major shifts < in national policy should be left to the Congress and to the Federal < Communications Commission. Council members should desist from forcing < AT&T to require "open access" to other Internet service providers as a < condition to a new cable franchise agreement. Beyond the fact that such a < move would be of dubious legality, it would also set Pittsburgh at a < competitive disadvantage in terms of broadband access to the Internet, as < AT&T would likely delay expanding service during a protracted legal < struggle. Franchise agreements between municipalities and cable companies < used to be fairly cut and dried. Within the parameters established by the < Federal Communications Commission, each side would haggle over < rights-of-way fees -- in Pittsburgh's case, some $3 million a year -- and < then call it a day. But no more. Last December, as a condition for < approving the transfer of the local cable franchise, Portland, Oregon < required AT&T to open its cable lines to rival Internet service-providers < (instead of necessarily bundling its own affiliate @Home with the < service). They did so under the banner of "open access," and each < subsequent franchise negotiation has been a major battle. A federal < appeals court is now determining whether Portland had the power to do so. < AT&T is betting heavily on cable as the Internet's future, having spent < more than $100 billion on cable companies, and billions more to update < their systems. It was through its $54 billion acquisition of TCI Inc. < early this year that AT&T picked up the cable franchise in Pittsburgh, as < well as its controlling stake in, and exclusive contract with, @Home. < Relatively few Americans now access the Internet via cable, but more and < more will be making the switch as AT&T and other cable players complete < the necessary investment. Cable access is dozens of times quicker than < your traditional phone dial-up service. Though America Online now has 20 < times more members than @Home, it and other established Internet providers < fear the potential of an AT&T monopoly as people flock over to cable. < America Online does not want its members to have to choose between it and < greater speed; it wants to keep its members, whether they opt to dial in < via Bell Atlantic's phone line, satellite, or AT&T's cable line. The < "open access" proponents argue that it undercuts consumer choice and < desirable competition to have @Home as the sole cable-based portal to the < Web. They point to the long-distance telephone market as a regulatory < model, in which one company controls the wire into consumers' homes, but < consumers are still able to choose service providers, which in turn pay < the wire owner for their traffic. This is a compelling vision, and may < in time become the desirable model for federal policy. But the < Post-Gazette believes that it is premature to rush to such a judgment. < AT&T may yet conclude that it is best served by opening up its wires to < all players as a means of hastening Internet consumers' migration to < cable. There have been reports of talks between AT&T and AOL about such a < possibility, and AT&T management has made no secret of its mixed feelings < about being tied to @Home. Second, it may be too early to discount faster < DSL phone lines, satellite and wireless technologies as viable < alternatives to access the Net. But even if one ascribes to the view that < a forced "open access" is needed now, the fight should be taken up in < Congress and at the FCC. It is absurd to believe that policy crucial to < the Information Age's nervous system can be cobbled together < municipality-by-municipality. Pittsburgh should join such cities as < Seattle and Los Angeles that have declined to throw up roadblocks to the < timely rollout of what potentially will be one of many faster roads < online.
|