Doug, I thought that the FON official's comment about the potential for an alternative to the copper loops (and very likely, to coax drops , as well at some point) in five to ten years. The article reminded me of the struggle of some specialized manufacturing firms in the early- to mid- Nineties who were struggling to get their ISDN wares (both software and hardware platforms) honed and perfected for the marketplace, only to find that their energies were widely and with great disappointment, misplaced. But we proceed in stages, for there is no final end zone, and FON as well as all other players must do what they have to do, incrementally.
Overall, the article was a reminder of the multi-demensionality, and yet the tightly intertwined nature of NSP fabrics in the SP universe, these days. I say these days because prior to the influence of the Internet there were indeed reasons to consider various strata of networking (LAN, MAN, WAN, public vs private) as separate galaxies unto themselves, each with their own cultural idiosyncrasies, joined only through NSP circuit switched gateways, as opposed to cell and packet level switches and routers. Today they are increasingly not this way at all.
FON remains an enigma to me in many ways. Was their ION initiative founded on solid rock, or was someone simply verbalizing a dream at a side show one day that they had the night before in response to some earlier armstrongian proclamations? I'm still not sure. If what they say is accurate (re inundating central offices with xDSL DSLAMs), I'd be somewhat surprised, and I'll be looking forward to see how the incumbents treat the situation going forward. For, the ION initiative, like MCI's onNet, is a lot more invasive of multi service layer territories than the mere leasing of copper for resale. ION purports to be able to allow for the opening of voice, video etc., at an upper layer in the stack, thus permitting the bypass of the ILEC's comparable service layers, altogether.
What's being stated in the article about FON and the ILECs could just as easily be projected into the cable space, once enhanced services and improved bandwidth accommodations unfold in the cable venue. The MSOs are headed for carrierdom, whether they like it or not. And it's been by their own choosing.
While the are momentarily enjoying the rights afforded under monopoly franchise privileges, which were originally granted for selected types of program services, they are at the same time embarking on the more global forms of service that transcend the assumptions which were held at the time those franchises were issued.
They've outgrown the parameters of the franchise precepts, in other words. Such notions were, at most, only fleeting in nature, as they quickly, over a short period of just four or five years) lost their significance and meaning against the greater backdrop of the 'net.
And the mere fact that T and other MSOs have taken a gamble, betting that the status quo will be maintained with respect to their rights and privileges, effectively making an assumptive close at a sales call, is no justification for seeing their wishes fulfilled.
The MSOs (T in particular) did, in fact, and by everyone's proud admission, take high risks, despite the dubious (yet unofficial) blessings of certain commissioners whose authority to grant such protections is still suspect and may soon prove to be unfounded. And naturally, the reason for calling their actions highly risky in the first place was due to the even-up possibility that they would not succeed with their gambit at all. Alas, the old adage may, in the fianl analysis, be proven true: Stuff happens.
The following questions remain in my mind:
(i) Do the MSOs have the foresight to anticipate the final outcome and leverage what they can to everyone's (most importantly, their own) benefit, or
(ii) Will the MSOs fight this thing to the end and prove once again that they are not averse to taking high risks by erecting additional barricades, while failing to take a proactive stance to the inevitable?
The foregoing is not merely a defeatist attitude in the face of adversity. Actually, quite the contrary. It would prove their innovative mettle if they could devise such a mutully beneficial scheme, while at the same time continuing to own the deck. Do they have it in them?
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
