Subject: Re: Bandwidth Trading Article
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 05:56:00 -0800 (PST)

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.