Key Test for L.A. on Net Access
Los Angeles is one of many cities faced with a choice that will tax its technical knowledge, not to mention its judgment. At issue is a fight over high-speed Internet service and what companies will be allowed direct access to one of its most promising forms--two-way cable television connections.
The questions: Should AT&T; have exclusive access to the technology it will create to bring this fleet and comprehensive Net access to Angelenos? Or should it be forced to open the technology to competitors such as America Online and GTE, among others?
This comes before the city government because it ultimately involves local cable franchise contracts. What Los Angeles will do, to be decided by the mayor and City Council, will be watched across the region and nation. Hanging in the balance are billions of dollars in corporate investments in high-tech infrastructure in the city that was the birthplace of the Internet.
All of this comes about because of the drive to consolidate technology and power among some of the behemoths of the business world. The biggest of those moves to date was AT&T;’s acquisition of Tele-Communications Inc. for more than $48 billion in March. TCI’s holdings alone gave AT&T; a system of cable lines that ran past one-third of the nation’s homes. Moreover, it gave AT&T; powerful local access that it lacked. AT&T; would have to upgrade those lines at considerable cost to offer high-speed Internet connections, data service and two-way telephone service.
America Online, GTE and others have vainly pressed Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to give them direct access to those cable lines so they can conduct their own operations, ostensibly to ensure that the public gets better services through business competition. That’s what they are now seeking in cities around the nation, including Los Angeles.
The city’s Information Technology Commission board will formally receive a report that will recommend a course for the city. The five-member board has been decimated by three quick resignations. Mayor Richard Riordan staunchly supports exclusive rights for AT&T; the three commissioners who quit--one of whom used to work for GTE, a major rival of AT&T--favor; open access.
The businesses promoting open access gained their one victory on the municipal level. That was when Portland, Ore., stipulated that AT&T; would have to share its cable lines. A federal judge recently backed Portland’s decision, and that’s why Los Angeles has become a battleground.
The cable argument: The Internet has flourished because it is unregulated; this is not a situation similar to those old, exclusive cable television franchise contracts. AT&T; is taking all of the risks in investing in this technology. Requiring cable operators to share networks with all Internet providers would discourage cable from investing and hurt the consumer by stalling the introduction of high-speed services.
The open-access argument: Yes, there are competing high-speed technologies. But the forecasts show cable outpacing them, and many of the other technologies bandied about as competitive are unreliable, too expensive or years from fruition. Without allowing Internet service providers access to high-speed cable services, consumers will suffer and the situation will turn into another AT&T; monopoly.
If the mayor hopes to convince the City Council that anything called “open access” is not what’s best for consumers, then he’ll need to make a more persuasive argument that any he’s put forth so far. The forces lining up behind Internet service providers to get the millions and those lined up behind AT&T; to keep the millions might make for the biggest lobbying bonanza City Hall has seen in many years. Amid all the political jockeying, the mayor and the council must stay focused on protecting the only people whose interests they were elected to represent: the consumers.
