Thanks for the info & links Jay. Some interesting stuff. I skimmed over the "replaya.doc" Interesting analysis on the "third-party access" vs. "resale" models. I offer the following comments.
3P Access
This is where the ISP simply purchases direct access to its subscriber. The question I have is how to price the access. Mind you bandwidth on the cable platform, particularly along the coax beyond the fiber node is a scarce resource. What if the subscriber is a bandwidth hogger, or conversely, he hardly uses his connection? What price should the ISP pay the MSO for providing ACCESS to this customer when the magnitude of this ACCESS is uncertain? Well, we can take an average, right? Do some statistical analysis of typical downstream/upstream usage by a sample residential neighborhood and price everybody accordingly? What price should AOL pay vs. the local mom & pop ISP for access to a single subscriber? Who is going to set these prices, and who is going to regulate such pricing structure? How tailored can the MSO price its access based upon local demographics of the would subscribers?
Resale
This is where the MSO simply operates the entire network & simply pays the ISP a monthly fee based upon the number of subscriber who the ISP as their provider. Nothing more than an accounting book entry, correct? Then WHO still has control over the customer, the ISP or the MSO? While bandwidth-wise this may be the more efficient model, but does it really address the policies behind open access, or does it really just stuff cash in the ISP's pockets in exchange for keeping their mouth shut on the open access issue.
How soon will it be before the present model changes and ISP start selling the real estate along the IP gateway that they now control? ATHM forces the subscriber to use @Home's website as his/her homepage, is this correct? If not, then it's just a matter of time before it or other ISP's such as MSN eliminate the choice of a subscriber to choose his/her home page. Talk about open access! Next consider the NZRO model whereby the subscriber is forced to view banners & frames that require clicking before journeying onto an intended destination. Is this what these "open access" ISP have in store for its subscribers in the future? How do these less capitalized ISPs survive going forward if the infrastructure over which they provide access to their customers is not really theirs, and their only means of profitability is the resale of wholesale MSO cable platform services? Then what function do they perform if customer service from a reseller is, IMHO, not really customer service.
In the grander scheme of things, I see the Internet and the evolution of e-commerce as an economic revolution of free the consumer and the true supplier of goods and services of the unnecessary middleman, unnecessary meaning providing little or no value. So why should these ISPs be exempt from this economic infrastructure? Well, IMHO, these ISPs are soon going to attempt to differentiate themselves by the delivery of unique content available only through that ISP's gateway. If not, then why use them? Customer service? Its possible, but if my MSO is TMX, I'm willing to be that should I need customer service, I'm likely going to receive better service if Roadrunner is my ISP than if Juno is my ISP on AOL-TWX cable platformk, regardless of Juno's good intentions.
Lastly, from what I've read, I still don't see the argument that the cable platform can support an unlimited number of ISPs. I just have to conclude that the more ISPs on a single platform, the more complex is its management, both technically and fiscally, which is bound to cause problems that is going to lead, directly or indirectly to diminished customer service, and perhaps QoS. Open access? If yes, then at what cost? |
