TCOMA-BEL failed for one reason: too expensive to deliver the goods. That is, people wouldn't try an unknown content with a high price tag and the companies couldn't afford fiber to the curb en masse without large public support. The internet has created or identified the missing ingredient, large public support. We are willing to pay a premium for broadband services in a certain format with a rich content. The possibility of piggy-backing telephony just gives the proposition an added investment attraction. The proposition has become manifest destiny.
That means the world is moving unavoidably to cable distribution of media. It isn't a question of whether the proposition is viable technologically, it's only a matter of implementation and who is going to do it. ATT doesn't have a choice. It is either bet the farm or gradually go the way of the dinosaur. There are many companies not so large that will pick up the proposition if ATT passes. The threat to ATT is not that they lose out on potential multimedia distribution business or other future services, it is that their traditional business, local or long distance voice, is threatened by any wire puller. They can't afford to withdraw from the battle and let someone else do the legwork.
FON is doing legwork with ION. They're fumbling because they've been misled by the technological cognoscenti into believing one aspect of delivery, DSL, is the appropriate delivery vehicle. It is easy to be misled in that telephony doesn't require cable capabilities and the copper wire is all in place. This is a mistake and will put them behind unless they run with cable modem. When you suggest waffling, FON is doing that because they have gotten also plenty of direction away from DSL because of the low marginal add-on cost ancillary to broadband delivery and they aren't going to make the big bet until the right direction gels. They are trying to reduce the error of wrong choice by letting others experiment. They don't have that luxury. The day the T-TCI merger is completed, they have to have something in place that would be competitive.
There are lawsuits being prepared to block that merger. The only effect will be to slow down the inevitable. ATT will use the de jure precedents of the Telcom Act to defeat the opposition even though the de facto nature of the Telcom Act is anti-competitive. The Act is based on the sole premise of "separate but equal". In order to comply with the Act companies must engage in restraint of trade actions. Thus the Act is unconstitutional and as soon as this is demonstrated in court, the FCC will have to back off stringent interpretation. Then the competition doors are thrown open and whoever is positioned will reap a mighty reward.
If FON uses the delay to fiddle, they won't be positioned. Competitive long and local telephony becomes possible when the delivery medium is cable because telephony can be controlled by the computer. The PC makes trying alternative carriers easier. In fact, software can be written that finds the cheapest path, and sets up the connection even if that means engaging several access routes owned by different carriers. PC orchestrated communication can save "separate but equal" and navigate around restraint of trade while preserving the nominal infrastructure expense carrying local monopolies.
In order for this to be achieved it is necessary for CLECs and RBOCs to develop a cable presence. They either have to pull their own wire, buy cable companies, or rent access. Surprisingly, it is the latter that seems the least expensive. A local carrier charges their customers for the uplink LD HFC telephony local haul access and adds the LD carrier charge. The downlink end local carrier charge is assessed by the local carrier and added. The up-across-down total charge would be cheaper than current rates. Everyone's turf is protected up to competition and the public gets realistic choice. |
