Re: Re: Opposing Bells

[Joe Shea <joeshea@netcom.com>]

	Thanks to all of you for some excellent and thoughtful responses.
I have followed up the first editorial with a new one today (July 2).
		____________________________

		      WE AGREE ON AT&T
			 by Joe Shea
		American Reporter Editor-in-Chief

	There's been a lot of feedback over the past two days on my
editorial on AT&T, which argued that the long distance carrier's
reliability -- along with the fact that it would have to build the system
other ISPs want to be able to use -- was reason enough to give it a
monopoly in Los Angeles on providing high-speed Internet access.
	That's what Mayor Richard Riordan wants to do.  When I spoke with
him about on a KFWB show, "Ask the Mayor," last week, he also said that
the Federal government should create a policy for cities to follow, rather
than have each create their own.  
	While that may have merit in theory, it would take years to
accomplish, and we frankly don't want to wait that long for high-speed
access -- they've been promising it "next year" ever since 1995 -- and the
greater efficiency it will create. We think it would be a good idea to let
the Federal government take a look at one city in microcosm so that the
FCC can get some real-world observation to back up its eventual policy. 
Obviously, if it doesn't work here, people will force the politicians to
try another approach; either way, we won't lose. 
	Among the folks who responded, Audrie Krause of San Francisco, who
heads NetAction, is one of the Internet's most honored activists. She
added a new dimension to our understanding of AOL's lead role in trying to
force AT&T to open the system it builds to other ISPs.
	"AOL is also fronting for the Bells and GTE in San Francisco, with
the same demand that AT&T be forced to lease space on its broad band cable
network to its competitors," she said.  "AOL is the number one
"gatekeeper" among ISPs, so its call for "open access" has more than a
tinge of hypocrisy.  Nevertheless, AOL is being used by the Bells and GTE
to deflect attention from the fact that they haven't opened their networks
in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996," she said. 
	"If the local monopolies unbundled their networks, there would be
plenty of competitive choices in high-speed Internet service over the
phone network by now.  Cable would just be one more option, as wireless
will be some day.
	"And if the cable companies had spent the past 50 years forcing
ratepayers to finance their capital improvements instead of asking their
investors to do so, I might be inclined to overlook AOL's hypocrisy.  But
it's the Bells and GTE, not the cable companies, that ought to be opening
their networks.  After all, we paid for 'em," Audrie pointed out. 
	"When the Bells and GTE are on one side of a power struggle and
AT&T is on the other, deciding which is the lesser evil is a no-brainer,
IMHO." 
	And this came from reader Ashby Beal:  "Your point, I think, is
not that AT&T or AOL is bad or that one should prevail over the other but
that Angelenos should have access to high-speed internet access.  Indeed
all Americans ought to have the opportunity.  A proprietary AT&T cable
system doesn't deny anybody this access; it simply charges a market price
for the service.  I am concerned that the efforts of AOL, GTE and other
ISPs will impair the effectiveness of cable modem access and thereby
disincent RBOCs from competing with DSL service and possibly slowing down
other forms of high-speed internet access such as wireless and satellite," 
Beal said.
	"Thanks for your editorial on AT&T in LA," wrote longtime
subscriber (and good friend) Israel Rosencrantz.  "I work for AT&T so I
cannot be completely unbiased, but it seems very wierd to me that someone
would have the idea that it is reasonable for AT&T to spend a billion
putting in the infrastructure and be forced to sell it to a competitor for
cheap. It makes no sense to me at all. I wouldn't build it if I couldn't
make the best use of what I built. Hopefully the FCC will agree and LA
will get their fast cheap reliable access."
	Israel also agreed that a backup provider like Sprint would be a
necessity, given the demand on the proposed system:  "Yes, I agree that
without the ability to handle the capacity and have some reserve, there is
bound to be a problem," he said. 
	These responses encourage me to believe that the effort to make
AT&T open its Internet backbone to others will not succeed.  In fact, two
days after my editorial, Los Angeles Times columnist Shawn Hubler -- a
woman I find myself agreeing with more often than not -- made pretty much
the same points, but added an important element I'd overlooked:  the city
can get some leverage to provide free high-speed access to schools, city
agencies and libraries and major cultural institutions in exchange for the
right to handle the vast stream of traffic that will come to its system. 
	Hubler pointed out, too, that when Portland, Ore., decided to
require ATT to open its system to ISPs there, ATT responded by refusing to
bring high-speed access to Portland.  If that happened to L.A., it would
cripple this city's participation in the cornucopia of the Internet for at
least a decade.  That must not happen.
	High speed access is the next step the Internet has to take become
a truly global medium, as fast as a phone or a television.  But if that
access is as unreliable as most ISP connections, then its promise will be
compromised; and if AT&T has to build the system for others, its desire to
maintain it as carefully as its long distance system will be limited, and
we will get a spotty system that does only half of what was possible. 
	We do not approve of monopolies in general, but we also believe in
rewarding investment, innovation and excellence.  As Israel Rosenkrantz
noted, "AT&T has been spending money faster than it is printed to build
the infrastructure of the future."  Indeed, the company (and millions of
its shareholders) will take a huge financial gamble on its technology and
the Internet, just 15 or 20 years after it seemed likely to end up on the
sidelines of the telecommunications industry.  No one should have the
right to take away their reward now if the gamble is a good one.
	Still, I suspect that the day will come when new technology makes
even the new AT&T system less essential than it is today;  market forces
will break the monopoly then, as the new guys roll out the world's
snazziest billion baud-per-second modem that runs on sunbeams and works by
teleporting tachyons. 
	
			      -30-

			*	*	*

	Have a terrific Fourth!

Best,

Joe

Joe Shea				|	1812 N. Ivar, No. 5
Editor-in-Chief				|	Hollywood, CA  90028-5026
The American Reporter			|	(213)467-0616
http://www.american-reporter.com	|	joeshea@netcom.com

"The first daily newspaper with original content to start on the Internet."
		             -- Adam Gaffin, Internet World (Sept., 1995)