Chinaoped

0

Hd The Modem

Battlefields

Now that many of us have learned to navigate in and around our favorite Web sites, the next priority is to do it a lot faster (the typical American answer to most any pursuit). At present, the technology of choice for making that happen is a cable modem.

AT & T;, which last year acquired a huge cable company and is about to purchase a second, has made clear its intention to invest in the equipment and other resources required for high-speed Internet access. It wants to become one of the handful of communications giants left standing after the current round of consolidation is completed. That means owning a large share of the cable market.

L.A. could be the place where that effort is won or lost. The issue is whether a cable company already serving an area should have the exclusive right to selling broadband cable modem access the closed-access approach that AT & T; is pushing or whether it must open up its lines to non-cable competitors, such as America Online or Sprint.

The broadband market is considered the keystone to growth in several industries: telecommunications, entertainment and news and information not to mention the manufacturers of computers, modems and other hardware that will hook together everything. With ultra-high-speed Internet access, users would be able to order movies or television shows at a moment’s notice. The content would then be transmitted to their television sets or computer screens.

It also creates endless possibilities of interaction between users/viewers and content providers. As Business Journal reporter Sara Fisher recently noted, viewers could actually play along with “Jeopardy!” rather than just scream out the answers in their living rooms.

Cable modems aren’t the only way to achieve such broadband possibilities, but they appear to be the most popular. Word-of-mouth among those who have them is especially positive, which, of course, heightens the interest among AT & T; and other major operators to get cable households hooked up as soon as possible.

Mayor Richard Riordan took an early position in favor of closed access, leading to the well-publicized but little-explained resignations of three members of the city’s Information Technology Agency who had supported open access. Since then, the mayor has been vague in defending his position, leading, of course, to the inevitable speculation that he is somehow in cahoots with AT & T.;

As with so many Internet issues, there is little on the books to guide local governments. Portland has required an open-access system, and a federal judge upheld that position last month. But AT & T; is appealing. And William Kennard, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is pushing for a national standard so as to avoid separate reviews among tens of thousands of local municipalities. Even Congress is considering legislation that would require open access. It will be many months, probably years, before it’s all sorted out.

From a political or public relations standpoint, there is little that’s inviting about closed access. Some argue that it flies in the face of general democratic principles, and of the Internet’s tradition of being open and accessible. Simply put, it just sounds bad.

But closed access may not be such a terrible thing certainly not the dastardly thing being described by the other side. And closed access does not necessarily signal the end of competition.

More on the reasons why next week.

No posts to display