The FCC, local governments, cable companies, ISPs, and the public have a problem. They all are imagining that there is a struggle going on between two sides, call them AOL and ATHM. The two sides perceive themselves as representing a market solution. The problem is that neither operates in the same market. Therefore AOL's "open access" solution has nothing to do with ATHM's proprietary distribution system. All these interests better get on the same page else they will recreate the cable TV disaster of the past.
What is on the same page is the recognition that copper and cable based distributions are separate and distinct and represent two separate and distinct markets though they overlap in functionality. The two markets compete through technological change, but the companies within these two markets only compete with each other on a basis of quality and cost of service and content. Since the technologies are substantially different their respective qualities and costs are different which differentiates both markets up to technological advances. This makes each market a level playing field with respect to all existing competitors within their own markets. Copper ISPs don't compete with cable. Cable is far more expensive and potentially delivers more, but copper is adequate. cheaper, and proven. The battle that is being engaged in Portland and elsewhere like Los Angeles tries to pit separate markets against one another. This is a major error.
The appropriate players in say, Los Angeles, for the cable market are given in this listing:
The City of Los Angeles is served by seven cable operators, including AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Century Communications, MediaOne, Cox Communications, Falcon Communications, and Buenavision Telecommunications that operate in 14 franchise areas.
That defines the cable market which is different from the below listed copper ISPs who also have a presence in Los Angeles and define the competitors in the copper market:
AOL, Earthlink, MSN, Mindsprind, GTE, Prodigy, PsiNet, and 300 others.
Century doesn't compete with Psinet and Earthlink doesn't compete with COX, but COX and Century should be competing just like Earthlink and PsiNet are. T's solution isn't addressing this any more than AOL's. T wants ATHM carried exclusively on all cable MSOs. That isn't a competitive market. It is an attempt to recreate the disaster of the past not only found in cable TV but in copper telephony.
It always seems so expedient and promotional of competitive free markets to compromise the principals of the competitive free market. That's exactly what Congress did in the Telcom Act of '96. Everyone in this era believes so strongly in competitive free market capitalism, yet what we have as a result of such true belief is the most strangulating octopus monopoly corporations ever seen in history.
Where is there a proposal to provide open access to several cable ISPs say, HSAC, RR, and ATHM, with others possibly to be created? Where is it supported that if the cable MSO will only carry one preferred cable ISP, then the public must be offered the possibility within any franchise to take another MSO's offering? When do I see corporate executives suggesting to the FCC through midnight letters that there must be at least 3 cable ISPs available to any subscriber following the Bork Rule defining the minimum necessary to promote competition? The answer is nowhere, nowhere, and never.
Thus the AOL-ATHM battle is misdirected which obfuscates its purpose and brings about an undesirable end. The public's attitude is that they could care less as long as the battle delivers some kind of service and protects them against the greed and evil of the capitalist pigs. The corporations will adapt to whatever pile of nonsense comes out of this engagement, but it will have little to do with an effective solution. The solution starts with recognizing separate and distinct markets. Rather, the non-solution of the result of battle will slow the advent of BB:anything, make whatever is finally thrown up unnecessarily expensive in order to afford the "fairness" provisions, and redistribute poor service to the rich neighborhoods. There is no battle between AOL and ATHM, but if the people and corporations want one, I'm sure we'll end up with a BB:Vietnam. |
