As Council Vote Nears, Group Backs Open Access to Internet

With the Los Angeles City Council moving toward a key vote on the issue of high-speed Internet connection, supporters of a so-called open access policy announced the formation Monday of a broad political coalition to lead their local campaign.

Members of the coalition, which calls itself the Southern California Open Access Alliance, range from consumer groups to homeowner organizations and encompass an unusual ideological band, including the Rev. Cecil “Chip” Murray, the senior pastor at First African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the traditionally conservative Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns.

The new alliance intends to press council members for their support of opening high-speed access to Internet service providers, a position favored by America Online and other providers, but vigorously opposed by cable companies and AT & T.

The business stakes in the debate are huge, with each side lobbying for a leg up in the high-speed Internet market, an area that experts see as ripe for enormous growth. Advocates on both sides say that consumers’ interests are very much at issue, with each side saying that its approach will offer consumers choice and reliable service.

“There’s a real reluctance to talk about the consumer perspective in this issue,” said Kerman Maddox, the spokesman and leader of the alliance. “We’re concerned about the impact of this on low-income communities and small businesses.”

Maddox said those interests would be best served by requiring the cable companies to provide space to Internet service providers. That, he said, is because competition between providers will drive down prices and give consumers the option of selecting between rival firms. Portland, Ore., has pursued an open access policy, as has Broward County, Fla. Major cities such as San Francisco and Miami are considering similar policies, the legality of which is under review by federal courts.

Critics of open access, which they call “forced access,” contend that imposing such a requirement would have the opposite effect. In their view, forcing the cable companies to open up their systems would inhibit the spread of high-speed access by preventing the cable companies from capitalizing on their investment in offering the service. In addition, they warn of potential technical obstacles to forcing open access and say that the city would risk the right to regulate cable companies as well, thus costing the city the annual revenue it receives from franchise fees.

With such big stakes, both sides are pumping huge resources into the issue, particularly in Los Angeles, which is seen as a major battleground.

Indeed, the alliance, though broad in its political base, also reflects the major corporate interests in the issue. According to Maddox, the alliance so far has raised a number of contributions but has received its most significant financial backing from Pacific Bell, one of the phone companies that stands to gain if Los Angeles and other cities require the cable companies to open their services to other providers.

The lobbying campaign, already intense, has intensified in recent weeks, as City Hall has wrestled with the issue.

At the moment, the action is before a special committee of the City Council, but the ground is shifting there too. Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, who has played the leading role in the debate, is suddenly on the outs, as Council President John Ferraro has replaced him at the helm of that committee.

Ferraro and Ridley-Thomas backed different candidates in the recent 10th council district election, with Ferraro supporting incumbent Nate Holden and Ridley-Thomas supporting a challenger. As a result, some City Hall observers saw Ferraro’s decision to dump the councilman from the increasingly important committee as a political punishment.

Until the last few days, both sides have been angling for a September vote on the matter.

Now, however, a delay is possible so that Ridley-Thomas’ successor on the committee can get up to speed on the highly technical questions that dog the access issue. That successor, newly elected Councilman Alex Padilla, is expected to attend a public hearing on the matter today, but Ridley-Thomas warned that the change in leadership may disrupt deliberations.

“I think it could destabilize the process that we were pursuing to make a good decision in the public interest,” said Ridley-Thomas, emphasizing that his comments were not intended to slight Padilla.