If you do a syllogistic approach here it can get rather complicated and confusing. By all means, ATHM guidance from a technical perspective is important, even if only advisory.
Even this position could be challenged, since the MSOs have input into CableLabs, which is a Bellcore type of organization for the cable industry, so it could be argued that the MSOs, independent of ATHM, could meet with competitors through their CableLabs agents if technical competence is the issue. Unless, like I stated earlier, the real issue is bringing the other players onto ATHM's own backbone, in which case ATHM would be the more appropriate center of knowledge. CableLabs, however, could only serve in an advisory role to the MSOs, in any event.
Is this what it's all about? Bringing AOL and the other thousands of ISPs of the world onto ATHM's heretofore-closed and proprietary intranet?
Or, is it about allowing open access to the MSOs line and head end facilities, to the other ISPs, in "ways similar" to how ATHM functions today? There is a huge difference between these two scenarios for reasons which are arhcitectural, aside from those which are legal.
From a seemingly legal standpoint (and I am no lawyer, by any means), this thing doesn't seem right the way it stands right now, unless the consortium has collectively assigned powers of agency and attorney over to ATHM, but I don't see any mention of that anywhere, where the other operators are concerned.
But then again, the day is still young. |
