I wonder what third parties can offer to compete against @home other than a different domain name and perhaps special programming or access to pay sites that would normally invoke charges.
When it becomes technically feasible to open the lines, I suspect it would be similar to the situation now where several ISPs offer service on DSL lines, and very much like what happens on phone lines. ISPs differentiate themselves through all the means you mentioned -- cost, service, features, but only rarely do they offer content distinction since almost all of them offer the same content -- the internet. Maybe greater distinction in content is coming (as a kind of a return to the 80s when that was common), but it wouldn't be necessary right away.
Consider DSL. In the Seattle area where @home service is available in only limited areas, two different companies now offer residential DSL lines. Various ISPs offer their services over those lines. Those ISPs make several distinctions beyond price: Some ISPs meter the data sent or retrieved and charge extra for data over a set limit, others offer a flat rate without metering. Some offer a static IP address, others offer that only as a premium option. There are subtle differences in the ways the ISPs configure the same DSL modem that can have significant effects on some uses -- like games. The ISPs that use Covad's DSL lines rather than those of the local telephone company emphasize quality of service and give performance guarantees that aren't matched by the telco-linked ISPs.
That kind of competition would be great on cable as well if it were technically feasible and if it did not slow down the initial rollout. If it really does have the superior network that it claims to have and if it can improve its customer service operation, then I suspect that @home could easily flourish in such an environment without doing nasty things like making exclusive content deals.
The problem, as I understand it from folks around here that I trust, is that the cable plant isn't yet at that ideal state where it could support multiple providers. That means a slowdown in rollout of anyone's cable modem service. It's the slowdown that would be most harmful to @home.
(And I suspect that most of the companies that pay for "open access" lobbying know that and want just that kind of slowdown.) |
