Is AOL an ISP or is it not? If not, then what is it?
Frank,
I think the threshold question is what is an ISP?
And what is really meant by open access on the cable platform?
Is an ISP merely a facilitator that assists (or permits) a subscriber to access the Internet? Or is it more? In response to your question, I submit that AOL is both an ISP and something else -- that something could be an online service, or maybe something more.
Mechanically, I envision an ISP as a service that provides access to routers that permit dial-up requests from subscriber modems to be routed to a POP on the Internet & assign that connection an IP address that permits that subscriber to "surf" the Internet via his browser. If dedicated service is provided (DSL or cable), than the service provided is more simply maintaining that dedicated connection and fixed IP address. If my understanding is oversimplified, I invite your expert edification of my description.
Marketing-wise, I envision an ISP as the "retail-outlet" at the end of the Internet distribution channel. An ISP's main product, IMHO, is customer service. By performing its mission, an ISP ca build brand awareness within its market & grow its subscriber base faster than other who cannot deliver the same quality of service.
As a subscriber, I don't give a hoot whose pipes I use, whose POPs provide me access, or whose switching equipment I use. All I care about is the service I receive. And what is this service? It is quick access to the Internet; it is speed when downloading new web pages or files; it is quality e-mail service; it is dependability; it is mobility. IMHO, these are the first issues to be raised in a monopolistic ISP world. I don't my ISP to deliver me content; I want to choose that for myself -- that's why I access the Internet.
I analogize an ISP to something akin to the maitre d' at a restaurant. I enter the restaurant to consume food, or "content." I look to the maitre d' to promptly show me to my table and ensure that I get good table service from my waiter.
Ideally, the open access proponents would like the public to believe that open access (over cable) is about opening that maitre d' position to more than one individual, making it competitive to ensure the highest QoS -- to provide the consumer freedom of choice. I believe that the MSOs are not necessarily adverse to this model.
But the problem arises when the maitre d' is AOL. Instead of showing the customer to his table, AOL instead whisks the customer away to a private dining room with its own menu & its own table service. At the same time it makes every effort to confine the customer to this room to the detriment of the general restaurant establishment that has constructed the gateway that brings the customer into the restaurant from the street.
Now granted, what I describe here is not a perfect analogy. But I attempt to describe what I think is the core issue confronting true open access v. AOL access on the cable platform. It is my belief that Michael Armstrong (AT&T) would be willing to grant Steve Case the access he wants in exchange for some AT&T presence in that "AOL dining room." But Steve, at this point in time prefers to force his way into MSO restaurants through litigation or legislation rather than negotiate an arms-length deal with the MSOs.
Steve sold off his UUNET restaurant establishment to MCI a few years ago; he refuses to dig into his wallet to buy an MSO restaurant. Instead, Steve just wants that free meal. |
