"Please forgive my ignorance, but why should anyone need an ISP if they have access to a cable modem?....What right do they have to insist that that the suddenly deep-pocketed competitor route to their soon to be obsolete facilities? "
Sam,
If you are ignorant, so am I. I cannot understand why after AT&T spends literally billions of dollars making the coaxial pipes of TCI and Time Warner, two-way HFC networks, that they would be forced to allow current, dial-up, analog ISPs onto their network (don't the ISP's already have a free ride on the LEC's copper network?)? It's illogical to me, to force this upon AT&T when they are FINALLY willing to spend billions to compete with the current LEC's twisted copper pair monopolies into the home.
I know the argument of the likes of AOL, and others, but it just doesn't hold water anymore. The Telecom Act of 1996 was supposed to promote competition. Finally AT&T is stepping up to the plate to compete. And yet, Kennard hints that he may force AT&T to let others ride along on THEIR HFC networks (with regulated access fees, no less).
If someone can explain the ISP's argument in a common sense way, I would really like to hear it. Not just the rhetoric about monopolies the new HFC cable modem networks will create. That does not hold water. ALREADY, GTE (a CLEC) has cable modem service in my area, plus Time Warner offers Road Runner here too. If GTE was willing to step up to the plate, more power to them too (and I may even switch to them soon).
I don't think any company willing to risk billions of dollars should be penalized. It just makes no sense to me and makes the HFC upgrades move along so slowly. I wish the FCC would just rule once and for all, "The high bandwidth networks any companies (including LEC's DSL networks) are willing to spend billions on, are yours and yours alone."
Just IMHO, if the FCC did so, I think there would be a great deal more progress made at offering high band width services to millions of consumers.
MikeM(From Florida) |
