Kevin, in addition to what's already been stated by Eric let me say that the foundation of any such "exclusivity" agreements entered into by T and ATHM, as well as the other twenty four operators (keep this number in the back of your head) is, to say the very least, flawed in principle, if not a humorous and bold position for these players to be taking, considering numerous similar antecedents in not only this venue, but others, as well. I wont need to go back as far as Standard Oil, since there are plenty of examples right here in the recent telecom sector which are more recent, which make my point equally well.
To contemplate that such "exlusive" agreements are binding in Law (if they are ever truly tested) would be tantamount to suggesting that various other exclusive arrangements, which eventually unraveled, were likewise binding in earlier times, too.
One only needs to momentarily revisit similar exclusive arrangements entered into by T, say, in the 1883 to 1983 time frame, when T itself previously had similar exclusive agreements in place with twenty four "other" operating companies, namely, the individual Bell Operating Companies which eventually went on to make up the seven Baby Bells.
T, very assuredly, possesses the foreknowledge that this same outcome could befall it again. In fact, they know that it will, and at some point when the time is right they will be banking on it. It's just not the right time for it to happen now, is all.
And this foreknowledge is only one of the motivators, ostensibly, behind T's recent accession to the demands of the other ISPs, with Mindspring being only the first among many to follow.
This is all a part of a very cleverly orchestrated kind of unspoken gentlemen's agreement which has been on public display for over a year now, and T is simply acting out one of its parts in this grand performance, as it follows through with one of the primary imperatives which they have tacitly agreed to with the FCC.
Everyone keeps face this way, despite the fact that some of the technical issues have yet to be resolved, and despite that they know, even if ATHM doesn't, that a fate similar to that of the '83 divestiture looms serious, if they don't follow through.
One would hope, however, that T also realizes that in so doing they are actually working to the betterment of all parties involved in this situation. That is, if they are truly genuine about their stated course of action, and have an equal level of resolve in making it work. Read: greater concentrations of fiber or rearranging the existing spectrum in order to make more room for additional service providers and their users. And they might, and it isn't all altruism at play, either.
And one would also hope that T is not merely throwing a bone on the table as a momentary pacifier or placeholder, while they strive to effect other ends.
Personally, I think that they have, once again (after the follies of NCR, etc.), rediscovered again for the third or fourth time that their primary strength lies in their ability to be a common carrier, and not a content provider, or an computer manufacturer, or a financial institution, and that they will in fact show a resolve to carry as much traffic as they can, because this is how they make their money, in the end.
T is a transport and switching company, and they have no business being in bed with one of their best, albeit tenuous at times, customers. All IMO.
-----
You ask:
"Responsibility for headends, nodes and other 'last mile' outlet is ATHMs or MSOs?"
I don't think that that question could be answered purely on the basis of what makes sense, it calls for subjective assertion. If one assumes that the MSOs should look at this as a competitive opportunity, then one answer would apply. If, otoh, they think that they MSOs should shelter themselves and not be forced to allow others onto the franchised last mile, then another answer evolves.
One could deduce, if only looking at this from the perspective of property ownership, or even from the most popular variation of common sense, that the lion's share of financial responsibility would reside with the MSOs... IF the MSOs have a choice in the matter, with respect to indulging or declining this "opportunity." But some of them very likely wont see it as an opportunity. That would be too simple.
I could also ask, in a similar vein --in the exchange carrier space-- Whose responsibility is it to implement the necessary systems that will allow local number portability (LNP) among competing carriers in the local exchange space?
Should the incumbent LECs, or ILECs, foot the bill for these systems entirely? The very same systems that will perform telephone directory number translations every time that I decide to change my carrier to one of the incumbents' competitors? Or, should the new carriers (the CLECs) share some, or ALL, of this burden?
The actual answer to this question, in reality, bears little resemblance to logic, deferring to politics and lobbying efforts, and not just a little armtwisting in the public sentiment area, for it has been the ILECs who have borne most (almost all) of the financial responsibility for paving the way for their competitors to go into business. Makes sense, no? -not-
Albeit, with a loaded gun to their heads. The loaded gun was the overhang that the Comms Act of 96 and the FCC imposed on them in the way of the now legendary 14 steps that they need to achieve before being granted rights into long distance.
"I think the point I was trying to make Frank was that with the most recent T news allowing Mindspring to use their infrastructure and knowing ATHM has proprietary rights with T as well as the MSOs, would it be beneficial for ISPs to buildout or jump onboard?"
Permit me to go out of character for a few minutes while I take a slanted view in favor of ATHM. Do you mean the possibility of an ISP jumping onto ATHM's wagon as a result of being acquired by ATHM? I hadn't given much thought to those terms before. Their models are antithetical to one another, and there would be much pain, I suppose, but it wouldn't surprise me to see this happen, nor would it surprise me to see ATHM making some architectural adjustments of its own in order to enjoy greater reach.
Beyond these thoughts, I also feel that as an xSP, ATHM must make strides to become more media- and sector- independent, given the impact that wireless and some other fiber to the xyz alternatives soon may bring to the game, in the not-too-distant future.
Not only for greater reach to fixed residentials, but to allow their users the ability to "take it with them --under the ATHM brand-- no matter where they go."
Of course, ATHM users can do this now, but who is the primary SP of record when portable access is achieved today? I.e., who is garnering the revenues for that access the way things stand now? ATHM? or Metricom? Or the local cellular/pcn carrier, or some Angel from above who bears no obligation to ATHM, in the very near future? Those should be the more important questions from ATHM folks that need answering, and not simply whether it is achievable at this time on other people's access arrangements.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
