‘Open Access’ Controversy

Re “Internet’s Trojan Horse,” Commentary, Nov. 3: Audrie Krause uses best-case scenarios to offer reasons why “open access” to cable broadband networks should be denied. Krause cites Cox Cable’s offer of phone service for $9.95 a month as a prime example of competitive pricing.

I’m in the Media One service area. The local phone service offered by Media One costs $39.95, not $9.95. It’s bundled with a bunch of services I don’t want or need. Hardly competitive pricing, but they’ve got a monopoly on the cable wire and are proceeding accordingly. “Open access” would allow me to choose offerings from a larger number of competitive phone companies.

With Internet services, while $39.95 is a fair price (including my discount for regular television cable service) for the bandwidth and Internet service provider services, the ISP services are limited. I’d prefer to be able to choose another ISP with competitive services. I’d also like to be able to shop ISPs by price.

AOL isn’t the only independent ISP that would stand to gain from access to broadband networks, and denial of that access or bundling broadband service with ISP services deprives consumers of real choice. How Krause reaches the opposite conclusion is beyond me.

STEPH GREENBERG

Mar Vista

*

It’s about time someone uncovered the real motivation behind the local phone monopolies in trying to get access to the cable companies infrastructure. If the phone companies succeed, consumers will end up with the short end of the stick. I hope the City Council has the courage to put aside the catchy rhetoric of the so-called “open access” advocates and let the marketplace work for the benefit of L.A. residents.

JEAN WONG

Los Angeles