Jay P Chesnley: Things are a little bit moe complicated. A sample.... ( there is more )
TA
---------
Congress takes aim at cable Net access
news.com
Congress takes aim at cable Net access
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 6, 1999, 12:35 p.m. PT
Two congressmen are taking direct aim at AT&T's cable Internet business with legislation that would force the
company to open its network to outside Internet service providers like America Online.
Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) introduced measures today that would require AT&T and other
cable companies to give outside ISPs access to their broadband Internet infrastructure--a rule that AT&T has said would
undermine its move into cable phone and Net markets.
The pair of bills also would prod the big local phone companies to speed up their rollout of high-speed digital subscriber line (DSL)
service, in return for removing some of the restrictions on the telcos' data businesses.
The cable "open access" issue has been a controversial topic in Washington since AT&T announced its merger with cable giant
Tele-Communications Incorporated last year, and now is even important as the phone giant plans to buy cable operator MediaOne
Group.
Under existing rules, AT&T and other cable companies which provide high-speed cable Internet access require their subscribers
to use an affiliated ISP, such as the @Home Network or Road Runner services.
Led by America Online, ISPs have protested, arguing that they should be able to reach cable customers directly--similar to the
system which allows dial-up users to sign up for AOL without also having to use their telephone company's ISP service.
Under the banner of a lobbying group dubbed the OpenNet Coalition, the ISPs have pressed Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission to require cable companies to open their high-speed networks. To date, however, their efforts have
met with little success.
Today's bill marks the first real political progress that AOL and its allies have made on the issue. A Senate committee debated
the issue last month, but produced only a commitment to study the idea further.
Boucher and Goodlatte--both of whom represent AOL's home state of Virginia--today outlined the danger they said rests in
allowing cable companies to link their access and ISP services.
"ISPs are severely threatened by the deployment by cable television companies of broadband Internet transport connections
which also bundle affiliated Internet access services," said Boucher in a statement accompanying the introduction of the bill. "The
legislation we are offering today assures...that all Internet transport platforms in the future will be open, much as telephone
company transport platforms are open today."
Introduced just a day after AT&T agreed to purchase a second major cable company--a move that
has already drawn considerable concern in official Washington--the bill is likely to be viewed in the
context of AT&T's increasing dominance over the cable industry.
But the company points to the fact that other broadband options, such as DSL, wireless cable, and
satellite feeds are quickly being rolled out, providing other means of competition to the cable
networks. The FCC itself has put off ruling on the issue, citing increasing competition from other
broadband sources, AT&T representatives note.
"What's relevant on this issue is that there are going to be multiple facilities, not the specific size of
one company's footprint in one specific facility," said Blair Levin, a former FCC staffer who now
represents AT&T-controlled @Home in Washington.
The Internet bill also would prod the big local telephone companies to speed their rollout of
high-speed DSL Internet service, in return for reducing some of the regulation imposed on their data
services.
The measures would require the phone companies to submit a plan to state regulators in which they
would detail plans to roll out broadband services "as soon as economically and technically feasible."
The companies would be held to their plans until another broadband service provider offers service in the area, or until they are
able to serve 70 percent of households in a given telephone exchange.
In return, the bill would remove all price caps or restrictions on the telcos' broadband services, as long as the carrier provides
potential competitors with the ability to resell its local DSL lines at a "reasonable" price.
The measure also would remove federal rules that now prevent Baby Bell companies like Bell Atlantic or SBC Communications
from operating long distance data networks, or Internet backbones.
-----------------------
Feds struggle with new cable landscape
news.com
Feds struggle with new cable landscape
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
March 23, 1999, 5:30 p.m. PT
If a cable company looks like a telephone company, walks like a telephone company, and carries voice and data
traffic like a telephone company, should the federal government treat it that way?
The answer, for now, is no. But as cable operators like AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast leave the days of simple video service
behind, Washington policy makers are struggling to figure out if their old rules can apply to these new broadband leaders.
The topic has caught fire in Washington and on the Internet, as broadband services have finally hit the mass market. Cable
modems are the cheapest and most powerful version of high-speed Internet connections--and any change in the government's
cable rules will likely affect the rollout of cable Internet services.
The issue has sparked a series of congressional hearings slated for next month and continues to fuel an ongoing debate inside
the Federal Communications Commission.
"I am very troubled by the disparate treatment of the telephone platform and cable systems," said Congressman Rick Boucher
(D-Virginia), who co-chairs the House Internet caucus and is one of the leaders looking into the issue of cable rules.
Boucher said he and fellow Internet caucus co-chair Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) may introduce legislation next month aimed at
ensuring "parity of regulation" for cable and telephone Internet services. The details of the measure--which would be part of a
larger Internet omnibus bill--have not yet been solidified, he said.
Several other lawmakers are planning hearings on the rollout of broadband Internet services next month, and an appeal from a
small Los Angeles ISP could bring the issue of access to cable networks back in front of a reluctant FCC.
But despite the spotlight on broadband issues, the promise for real change in the way cable networks are governed appears
slim--at least in the short-term.
FCC chairman William Kennard reiterated in a speech yesterday that the agency is loath to impose any new
regulations on cable Net access. Meanwhile, most observers doubt that a pro-deregulation Congress would
write its own new rules for cable companies.
"It's difficult to conceive of a Republican Congress passing a bill that would be the most regulatory act since
the 1992 Cable Act," said Blair Levin, a former FCC chief of staff and current consultant to @Home, the
AT&T-controlled cable Net access service. The 1992 Cable Act was responsible for federal caps on cable rates, a set of controls
that will disappear at the end of this month.
Nevertheless, policymakers are in the early stages of figuring out how to manage the convergence of cable and telephone
networks, a debate that will likely remain on the front burner for some time.
Isn't it all the same bits?
Some regulators argue that the bits and bytes streamed through cable and telephone company wires are increasingly the same
pieces of information, and so it makes little sense for the law to treat them differently.
The rules affecting telephone companies stem from a 15-year-effort to break up the telcos' historic monopoly over voice service.
Federal cable regulations are much less strict, and have largely been geared at encouraging new competition, such as satellite
broadcasts.
Telephone companies are required to allow anybody to use their network for transmission purposes. This means that any ISP can
offer dial-up service over telephone companies' lines.
The picture is a little muddier for new high-speed DSL, or digital subscriber line telephone services. The FCC has yet to rule on
how open this system must be to competing ISPs, but has proposed that the telcos treat all ISPs identically.
Cable's forays into this brave new world of voice and Internet services have been treated differently, however.
On the voice side, the law is clear, and cable telephones are treated the same way as any other competing telephone start-up.
But unlike telcos, cable companies are allowed to bundle their Net service with their ISPs, making services like @Home or Road
Runner the mandatory default ISP for cable Net subscribers.
Telcos and ISPs say this isn't fair, and are lobbying heavily for what they call a "more level" playing field.
Open access: An open question
Led by America Online and MindSpring Enterprises, a coalition of ISPs and telephone companies has lobbied hard in Washington
to force cable companies to open their networks to rival services.
Although telephone companies and wireless services do provide competition to cable Net services, cable is in many cases the
most attractive--or the only--option, these critics say. This gives cable companies substantial market power, and reduces
consumers' ability to choose from a wide variety of Internet providers, they add.
"In large parts of the country, cable is the de facto monopoly broadband provider," notes Mitchell Lazarus, a Washington attorney
who has represented ISPs.
But to date the FCC has been unreceptive to the lobbying efforts. Regulators refused to take up the issue as
part of their review of AT&T's merger with Tele-Communications Incorporated, and declined to add it to another
recent report to Congress on the availability of broadband services.
Kennard has said the agency would continue to look at the issue, but that the industry was still too immature to act.
The coalition's best hope may be in Congress, where Boucher and Goodlatte--both of whom represent AOL's home
state--have proven receptive to the argument.
Any quick change in policy appears unlikely, however, since the vast majority in Congress still remains hostile to the
appearance of any new regulation of Internet functions.
A cable backdoor
A small Los Angeles ISP believes it has another way into the cable companies' networks, and is preparing to take its
argument to the FCC next month.
Internet Ventures, which runs a broadband ISP service dubbed PerkiNet, argues that current law should force cable
companies to lease ISPs their own channel on cable wires.
The argument is based on a requirement that cable companies lease between 10 and 15 percent of their capacity to
alternative broadcasters whose programming is not carried by the basic cable service. Internet Ventures CEO Don Janke
and his allies say the Internet, which is increasingly characterized by streaming video services, is similar enough to
broadcast programming to qualify.
Janke's company has petitioned for access to cable wires in four cities, and has already been denied once. Next month he
plans to ask the FCC to clarify its rules on the issue, hoping to win federal regulators' backing for his efforts.
"It's like a domino effect," Janke said. "If cable is allowed to keep its pipes closed, then the RBOC [regional Bell operating
company] lobbyists are going to be right behind them arguing that they don't have to open their networks either." That
could eventually create a broadband "duopoly," pushing small ISPs out of the high-speed Net altogether, Janke warned.
Levin predicted that PerkiNet's FCC bid would have little success. Regulators are unlikely to agree that Internet services,
like email and file transfers, are the equivalent of broadcast television, he said. And the cable companies have other
technological and policy arguments to make, he added.
"It's actually possible to have an infinite number of ISPs connect to the phone system," Levin said. "It's possible, but
unbelievably expensive, to have an infinite number of ISPs connect to the cable network. Cable was not designed that
way."
An issue with legs
Even if nothing is done this year or next, those close to the debate say policymakers will keep an eye on the cable
industry, to determine whether companies are getting any kind of unfair advantage.
"I am very concerned by the problem," Rep. Boucher said. "The goal is to have all platforms regulated the same way."
In an appearance in front of a Senate telecommunications committee last week, FCC chairman Kennard noted that the
whole industry is changing quickly, and that his agency needs to change along with it.
"In a world where old industry boundaries are no longer and competition is king, we need a new FCC," Kennard said. In a
report released the same day, the FCC said it would reevaluate its cable rules in the fiscal year 2000, along with a five-year
plan to restructure the agency.
But Kennard's comments also reflected the unwillingness of most policy makers to impose any new requirement on any
technology companies.
"In this atmosphere, where technology is like popcorn on a hot skillet, government's role is to stoke the coals and
encourage growth," he said, "not try to mandate how or when these kernels will pop."
--------------
you said
<<Why is ATHM limiting itself to such a narrow audience? I see them as a buy out
candidate.>>
I agree with you on this point. Some on the @HOME thread even suggest it may be
a sacrificial lamb on T's road to cable domination. As and @HOME shareholder, I
am not afraid of a buyout.. especially if AOL was to pay a 50% premium <gg>
<<All of the media coverage I have read or seen said that T will appeal this opening
of their pipes. Whether T wins or loses this battle in court the fact remains that the
appeal process will take YEARS.>>
Listen to the conference call. T will not be slowing down any of its BB plans. As far
as Portland goes, they did not even have plans to offer it in that area.
I applaud AOL's search for BB in DSL and Satellite, but personally feel cable is
where its at. You know I own AOL (about 90% of the value of my @HOME
holdings). I want AOL to have a cable strategy that works. If they do, we as share
holders will be better off.
regards
Jay
PS it is possible for more than one company to be a winner in this game. |
