Here is a senior-level person's opinion on broadband policy. For all his effort, I think it worth while to share with you and might stimulate some of your opinions too.
After I read an article from Jim Warren, founder of the InfoWorld, on Oct 5th issue of MicroTimes.
(Scroll to the 3rd article on that page)
microtimes.com
I responded to him twice and he replied to me twice. I am posting his replies here.
<First reply>
>
>Jim Warren¡s "Will Telcos Dictate Which ISP You Use?"
>article on 10/12/1999 made some serious errors on
>cable broadband.
>
>Unfortunately Jim became yet another victim of the AOL
>and openNET Coalition lies!
I am most-definately NOT an AOLful supporter! Not in ANY way!
>I quote his words™
>
>"And after Portland¡s trial-court ruling, AT&T stomped
>its feet and said it would refuse to provide any cable
>data communications at all, unless it can also serve
>as gate keeper for its users¡ content access"
That is functionally, *precisely* what they said -- they wouldn't provide
broadband net access over their cables, unless the users thereof subscribed
to THEIR ISP. That is, users would have to go through their ISP, in order
to get to anything else on the net -- and that is *exactly* what a "gate"
is all about: You can't get where you want to go, unless you go through
their gate.
AND ... at a minimum, they would collect a toll-fee -- whatever their
monopolized market would bear (them being the only cable operation in
town!) [or, duopoly, if you want to count the ILEC Bell's only-other-wire
to the home].
AND ... much worse -- they *could* choose to block access to any other
sites they choose to block ... or make it mondo-difficult to break out of
their monopoly-gate, to the rest of the net ... which is *exactly* what I
have heard that AOL does to its victims.
>"CONTENT ACCESS"? Either Jim did not have an
>understanding of Portland Ruling or he was trying to
>fool the public intentionally just like AOL¡s Steve
>Case and Bob Pittman have been doing. What "content"
>AT&T and Excite@Home prevent you from accessing on the
>web? Well, if Jim were not an AOL subscriber,
Them's fightin' words! <grin> I would NEVER use that abysimal [AOL]
system ... and I would CERTAINLY never *pay* for such "service" [not!].
I've been jwarren@well.com since the early '80s (and also have an account
on Concentric).
>can he
>enjoy the "You¡ve got mail" and "You¡ve got picture"
>content? Of course not, and it doesn¡t matter he uses
>dialup, DSL, or cable ISP. What does "content" have
>anything to do with Portland Rulings? Portland wants
>to PHYSICALLY open up the cable pipe for ISPs, it has
>nothing to do with CONTENT! Don¡t confuse AOL as
>content provider with AOL as an ISP provider.
If there's only one gate-keeper, through whom users MUST pass, if they are
to receive cable-based broadband -- then, like AOLful does to its victims,
AT&T can delay, censor or block any access it chooses to block ... whether
it does so, or not. (And most assuredly, the feds would *love* to have a
few more-easily-controlled megamonster ISPs through which almost all net
users were funnelled, than to have citizens free to use jus' *any* ol' ISP
... that is, *if* all those customers non-conduit-monopoly/duopoly ISPs
could have *equal* access to the cable conduits, just as they *do* have
*equal* access to the local phone monopolies.
Most folks will *not* pay for *two* ISPs -- if they are forced to buy the
ISP services from the cable monopoly [or from the ILEC's
only-other-game-in-town broadband/DSL monopoly/duopoly]. If they're forced
to pay for one ISP, in order to get access to a broadband pipe, then the
pipe owners *will* become the only ISPs for most users.
And THAT is *BAD* public policy!
In the first half of this century, consumers experienced the outrageous and
abusive results of vertical integration in the oil companies -- that
controlled the well-head, the refinery, the distributer and the retailer --
and there, at least there were *Seven* Sisters (plus numerous also-rans).
This time, we have a second chance. And -- just as there needed to be an
Interstate Commerce Commission to halt the abuses of the only-game-in-town
railroad robber-barons in the 19th Century -- and just as the Seven Sisters
were finally *somewhat* "broken up" (yeah, uh huh) mid-way in this Century
... so also should we tell companies that they can choose to be conduit
owners ... or they can choose to be ISPs ... but they can't be both -- at
least, not unless/until there are waaaay more than only one or two conduits
available to most citizens in a "service" area.
>Another of his claim™
>
>"Just think of it. You might be able to have data
>service just as controlled and filtered as AOL, which
>seems to make it especially difficult for AOL
>subscribers to wander beyond its internal offerings."
>
>Again, this is laughable! No body prevents AOL users
>from using AOL service on any physical infrastructure,
>period.
Please read what I wrote. My point wasn't that anyone was preventing AOL's
victims from using AOL. My point was that AOL makes it difficult -- or
impossible (in the case of "disapproved" content) -- for its users to get
to sites and information beyond AOL.
>AOL has option to let you use its service
>over DSL and cable through an offer call Bring You
>Own PipeΠfor $9.95 a month. Yes, you have to pay to
>use it, while similar or better services offered by
>Yahoo, Lycos, Excites™ are FREE! You have to ask AOL
>why can¡t they make their service free too?
No one's suggesting that AOL -- nor the ILECs, nor the cable/long-distance
carriers -- make their service available for free. Most-certainly *I* made
no such suggestion!
My point is that users of the only one or two communication conduits that
are available to most users/citizens/consumers -- for which, they *of
COURSE* should and must pay -- should NOT, thereafter, then be forced to go
through the conduit-owner's Internet Service Provider, in order to get to
the net.
Just as plain-old-telephone-service (POTS) users can now do -- for which
the phone company charges, and makes a profit -- users of *all*
conduits/carriers should be *free* to choose which ISP they with to use.
Conduit providers should NOT be able to use their monopoly or duopoly
status to *force* anyone who wants broadband net access to *also* go
through the conduit-owner's owned or contracted ISP.
>Excite@Home and telcos' DSL never stop AOL users from
>going to the Internet. Don't be childish.
Please read what I wrote -- rather than your reversal of that content.
That is NOT what I said.
>Another joke™
>
>"our well-lobbied legislative and regulatory leaders
>are pretending data communications over wires that are
>cable is different than data communications over wires
>that are phone..."
>
>Who and why needs to PRETEND? That is the FACT! Open
>access over cable lines and open access over phone
>lines are technically very different. If you use the
>cable open access approach proposed by AOL and openNET
>Coalition to open phone line ¤ you invent the
>technical miracle!
No, this is EXACTLY the same as the ICC forcing railroads and trucking
companies to offer equal rates to their customers, rather than imposing
predatory (or lock-out!) rates to customers who compete with their
also-owned manufacturing or distribution businesses.
And it is EXACTLY the same as the FCC forcing the ILECs to allow phone
customers to connect to any ISP they choose -- rather than being forced to
pay for and go through the phone company's one-and-only ISP.
>Jim, you really need to spend a
>bit more time on this issue.
You need to spend a bit more time on this issue. :-)
>I will be happy to supply further documents to help
>Jim understand topics in this area.
Always happy to receive substantive/factual information. :-)
BUT ... what would be most useful would be your rationale for why the
customers of the only one or two broadband wires that are likely to ever be
available to them, should then be forced to ALSO use the one or two
wire-owner's ISP services. *That* is my point -- and *that* is my concern.
However ... please be *assured*! -- I most-CERTAINLY have no affection for
AOLful. (And, in fact, I would assume that if and when they negotiate an
agreement with AT&T to be AT&T's one-and-only ISP for cable access, then
AOL opposition will evaporate ... but *consumers* and citizens will still
have the exact same problem ... and content-control danger. But, unlike
current AOL subscriber/victims, they won't have any other alternative
available, if they also want a broadband carrier.)
--jim
<Second Reply>
Hiya --
>I have to admit that you are a pro in defending
>yourself.
<smile> Too many years feuding with politicians. :-)
>I don't believe you would give in any of
>your view in that article, so I don't want to carry on
>the debate.
Actually, it's not-at-all uncommon for my to change my views -- publicly or
personally. All it takes is new [verifiable] information. But, I'm also
happy to *not* continue this debate. <smile>
>> Please read what I wrote ¤ rather than your
>reversal of that content. That is NOT what I said.
>
>It¡s truly my mistake and I apologize for that.
Thank ye kindly. After your response, I wondered if I had been unclear or
confusing in what I had written. <whew!> :-)
>As for using the oil companies and ICC applying to
>cable/DSL monopoly/duopoly, I think they are
>complicated issues,
YES! We CERTAINLY agree that the issues are NOT "simple"; they ARE complex
and contorted.
But, to me, certain principles hold in general -- and one of them is that
vertical integration of business giants is NOT good for the consumer nor
for the nation. And our laws, over the last 10-15 decades have recognized
this -- from the common carrier restructions and the antitrust statutes, to
the state public utilities commissions and Federal Communications
Commission (even with all of their frailties and tendencies to become
industry protectors).
I am not sophisticated enough to
>debate with you on those. Just like I have no idea
>about breaking up Microsoft based on previous
>antitrust experience is proper or not.
Well ... <grin> ... I have ideas about that too. But that's a different
topic. <smile> (Basically, I think that ANY entity -- governmental or
corporate -- should have their powers limited. Based on 4+ decades of
adult experience, I *do* believe the axiom(s) that, "Power corrupts" and
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
>Anyway, if you could, I would like to hear you simple
>and short answers
Oh! "Simple and short" -- now THAT's hard! <grin> Please note that you
*are* asking for simple and short answers to issues that you just said, and
I fully agree, are "complicated issues."
>on the following two questions:
>(I know your time is limited, and let¡s end the
>discussion after your reply.)
<smile> Fair enuf.
>1. Do you agree with FCC Chairman William Kennard
>saying that cable broadband, as of today, is Nomopoly
>(not monopoly yet), and government should avoid any
>regulation at its infancy?
(1) As of today, there is essentially [almost] no cable broadband.
Period! If memory serves me correctly, right now, there are less than a
million customers served by cable broadband (we are, of course, only
talking about cable for Internet datacomm; not cable television ... which,
technically, *is* "cable broadband".)
(2) However, in [almost] EVERY case, *if* a [non-business] consumer has
any cable at all -- cable tv, or cable "broadband"=Internet -- they ONLY
have ONE choice for cable service and ONLY have ONE choice for broadband
non-cable service (DSL, ISDN, etc.).
(3) Although there is a "Nomopoly" for the *entire* nation -- that is,
Kennard has to deal with more than one carrier -- there most-certainly *is*
a monopoly or, at most, duopoly for [almost] every single non-business
consumer of phone and datacomm services.
But most importantly:
(4) Yes, government most-certainly SHOULD avoid regulation at its infancy
-- *before* the all-powerful monopoly becomes so potent that, like AT&T and
IBM and the Seven Sisters [the oil cartel], it will take *decades* of court
battles to *finally* impose *some* control/regulation on them.
The time to train an 800-pound gorilla most-certainly *is* when it is
still an infant!
>2. Do you believe that DSL and cable broadband will
>have fierce competition with each other? (Don¡t even
>mention broadband through satellite, wireless, and
>FTTH "Fiber To The Home")
(1) In the 15-25 years of cellular "services" (prior to the very-recent
deployment of PCS competition) almost all cell-service areas had *two*
carriers -- and *only* two carriers. Did we see "fierce competition"
between them? Hell, no! Their competition was essentially limited to who
spent more on advertising and marketing of sky-high-priced cell "service"
-- so much so that, until PCS started to offer *real* competition, cell
service was so expensive that only businesses and the wealthy/well-to-do
could afford the luxury of cell phones.
(2) To answer more directly -- I can't think of a single instance where a
mere dupopoly has *ever* provided any *real* competition; certainly not
"fierce" competition.
(3) There has been, and will continue to be, *no* incentive -- and huge
dangers and DISincentives -- for any company to *dare* expend the massive
investment to install a third (much less 4th of 5th) wire to the home, in
any area already "served" by one [regulated] phone company and one and only
one [so far, unregulated (except by local/city fanchisers)] cable company.
(4) Two and only two, guarantees a duopoly; not real (or "fierce")
competition.
>For me, the answer happens to be yes on both. In my
>opinion, the competition is working and government
>should keep its hands off the broadband.
Oh?
Cable operators have been hammered with the value and market potential of
broadband bidirectional datacomm for almost 20 years [or more] (I was a
speaker on the subject, to a standing-room-only crowd, at the big national
broadcast and cable convention, back in the late '70s.
About then, or in the very early '80s, I consulted to the Palo Alto Cable
Co-op on the same issue -- when they were fighting for one of the last
cable franchises to be issued in SillyCon <sic> Valley.
Since the late '70s and early '80s, broadband datacomm advocates have
been prominant at almost *every* cable operators' convention.
Result, a quarter-century later: Less than a million homes with cable
datacomm.
(I also consulted to the Mountain View School District, in the middle of
high-tech Silicon Valley, when Pac Bell was trying to sell 'em on ISDN,
back in the mid-'80s ... that they didn't finally roll out for another
decade!)
However, the topic of my column was a different issue/concern:
I don't want the [only] one or two local and residential communications
carriers to be able to limit broadband services only to those victims who
-- in *addition* to paying them for their broadband carrier service (for
which they *should* receive a fair profit) -- must *also*
(a) pay for their in-house/lap-dog Internet Service Provider, and
(b) much *worse*, must route all Internet access through their in-house ISP
... with whatever [AOL-like] advertising, barriers, deterrants and
censorship they might choose to impose on access to the rest of the
Internet (just as AOL has done for years).
AOL is bad enough! At least we can easily obtain *alternative* ISP
services, rather than being forced to use AOLful.
For Gawd's sake -- for the nation's sake and for citizens' and freedom's
sake -- let's not give that AOL-kind of content-access control to the one
of two companies that can (and will!) provide broadband carriage to our
homes, and to most businesses.
>Once again, thank you for your time.
Sho' 'nuf! <smile>
>P.S. The law exists for ILECs to make its facilities
>available, The 1996 Telecommunication Act, and we just
>need to reinforce it. I didn¡t create this. It¡s an
>opinion from Schrader of PSINet (a CLEC).
I *abolutely* agree with this! It's the law -- but the all-powerful ILECs
didn't like in the years that they delayed any telecom reform legislation,
and now that it's been the law for a 3rd of a decade, they're simply not
bothering to obey it (with small, multi-year-foot-dragging exceptions).
One final point, re Kennard's "Nopoly" -- I seem to recall that, with their
purchase of TCI, AT&T now owns about 2/3rds (maybe much more) of all of the
nation's cable connections -- with, at *most*, one other broadband carrier
*potentially* EVENTUALLY available in any service area (the ILEC).
If there is a rationale for regulating the only telecom wireplant
deployed in any given area, why doesn't that rationale also apply to the
only cable wireplant deployed in any given area?
(When the only issue was entertainment tv -- with broadcast tv as an
option -- there was less need for regulation. But when it concerns basic
access by citizens to global information and communications, it is CRUCIAL
that it not be a monopoly or cell-phone-like duopoly.)
(Okay ... <grin> ... so no one accuses me of "terse". <grin>)
Thanks for the civil response. :-)
--jim |
