Hd – Don’t Upend
Cable System
Closed access to the uninitiated, it’s hardly an inviting prospect. Why would anyone want something that’s closed? But in the fast-moving world of high-speed Internet access, a closed system now being considered by the city of Los Angeles may, in fact, make more sense than an open system.
As we noted last week, AT & T; has its sights set on owning a large share of the cable market a goal that’s already been met with the purchase of TeleCommunications Inc. and Media One. An obvious reason for AT & T;’s interest is the opportunity to use cable connections to market high-speed Internet access, a far faster method of getting online than the dial-up approach still used in most households.
The company is prepared to invest heavily in this service, with Los Angeles being one of its first major incursions. The catch to all this is that AT & T; wants the cable modem market all to itself, which means no competition from the likes of America Online, GTE and Sprint. Those and other Internet players are crying foul at AT & T;’s plans, and are pushing for a system of open access in which the cable system operator would be required to lease its cable connection.
Because cable is regulated by local municipalities, the battle of open vs. closed will soon reach the L.A. City Council (providing, in the meantime, a windfall for lobbyists). At this point, Mayor Richard Riordan is siding with a closed system and we tend to agree, for the following reasons:
? “Closed access” is really a misnomer. While AOL, GTE et al would not be able to provide Internet access via cable lines, there are other technologies that provide a high-speed Internet connection most especially, the so-called DSL connection that is being provided by the phone companies. Some, in fact, argue that when the Internet dust settles, DSL will be the preferred method of getting on the Net (especially given the public’s dislike of cable operators).
? Internet access via cable modem isn’t cheap at this point, it’s running $40-$60 a month for the service, plus $100-$300 for installation. Services that provide the same service at a cheaper rate will be at an advantage.
? AT & T; will surely challenge a City Council vote for an open-access system as it is doing in Portland, Ore. leading to significant delays in providing cable modem service. And for what? So that other behemoths can get in on the action? The challenge hardly seems worth the potential delays.
? This is an opportune time for the city to cut a sweet deal with AT & T; that could include any number of civic-minded add-ons, such as high-speed Internet access for libraries, schools and city departments. Opting for open access and prolonging the process with a drawn-out court fight is not likely to garner the same kind of leverage.
In an ideal world, of course, the city’s entire cable network should be open to competition, whether it’s standard TV programming or Internet access. But the installation of competitive cable systems is generally deemed cost-prohibitive, and so we are left with the less-than-ideal system in which one operator is given a franchise for one particular region. That’s the rule and it shouldn’t be changed just because the service being provided is Internet access instead of TV programming.
Closed access may not sound like the best approach, but from our seat, it really is.
