In Cable Access, Size Matters

by Gus Venditto Editor-in-chief of internet.com [January 11, 2000]

The politically correct stance for most techies is to put down the political process as a waste of energy and electricity. Some of this attitude stems from a sense of boredom—a complete lack of interest in the slow-moving legislative process.

The activities of Congress and regulators seems pathetically irrelevant compared to the vital, fast-moving advances in technology and the Net. It's an easy stance to take, but it's an attitude that will cost the small ISP dearly.

AT&T does not ignore Washington culture. As a result, it knew how to spot a good thing: the cable monopoly, which was ripe for picking. With two quick picks (TCI and MediaOne,) AT&T suddenly transformed its long-distance phone business into cable dominance. It now owns thousands of monoplies around the country; regional cable franchises where the U.S. government forbids competition.

Accordingly, AT&T is now on the verge of controlling a major toll road on the information highway of the future. It's doing it with the help of the U.S. government that collects our tax dollars.

To consumers, it's a raw deal. It means there will be no competition as rates are set for cable access. Any Economics 101 student could see that competition in the open market drove Internet access rates down. To ISP's, it's a serious obstacle to growth. The opportunity to serve millions of homes with broadband is being denied.

AT&T is giving lip service to "equal access," implying that customers will be buying Internet services from local ISPs, after they have shelled out for cable access. That's an argument designed to placate federal bureaucrats.

There are a few people in government who are willing to fight the monopoly. Not surprisingly, they're from Virginia, home to AOL and PSInet.

A recent story in InternetNews.com's ISP News section described a bill by Reps. Rick Boucher and Bob Goodlatte, called the Internet Growth and Development Act of 1999. The bill calls for equal access to cable customers. It would prevent AT&T from handing over the exclusive contracts for cable access to @home or RoadRunner. In other words, it calls for competition, not monopoly, in Internet cable access.

"Congress must act now to ensure that the qualities that made the Internet a revolutionary tool for both businesses and families—openness, competition and easy consumer access—remain fundamental components of the Internet for future generations," Goodlatte said. He's right. The government created this monopoly. Only the government can do something about it.

  End