Defining Open Access

Before open access can become the de facto national policy allowing independent ISPs to offer high-speed cable services to American consumers—we need to make sure we're all talking about the same thing.

by Patricia Fusco
ISP-Planet Associate Editor
[December 14, 2000]

When it comes to the America Online-Time Warner merger there are two federal agencies struggling to define the scope of the same issue—exactly what does open access mean?

This is not the first time the FTC has dealt with the terminology—the federal consumer watchdog made open access the backbone of its energy initiative, which created competitive opportunities in the generation of electric power in some parts of the nation. But to the FTC, open access to electric energy sources simply means more than one supplier.

What federal regulators say
According to recent reports, the FTC is demanding that AOL-Time Warner open its high-speed cable networks to at least three providers in each market. So when it comes to open access for high-speed cable Internet services, the FTC apparently defines open access as more than three suppliers, or a minimum of four providers per market.

Now if we could just understand how the FTC defines market, we might have a working definition for open access.

FCC Commissioner William Kennard speaks often of open access and the markets ability to create a level playing field among rival providers, free from regulatory intervention. Although Kennard has never defined open access straight out, he at least shared his vision of what properties open access might entail.

William Kennard, FCC chairman
Excerpts from his December 16, 1999 speech to the California Cable Television Association (CCTA):

    "Everyone seems to agree that openness and choice are what consumers want and will demand. This debate is really about how to get there. There are two choices: we can rely on the market to facilitate openness; or we can try to regulate our way there. For now, I'm putting my faith in the marketplace.

    "It seems to me that if we are to talk about openness, we need to talk about open protocols, open boundaries, and open pricing.

     "By open protocols, I mean that the interface standards that applications developers and equipment designers use are arrived at in an open, transparent process, and then made accessible to everyone—just like the IP protocol.

     "By open boundaries, I mean that interconnection is encouraged, and bottlenecks and content control are eliminated. The borders are porous, not closed or walled-off, and outside programming and services are allowed to enter the network and interact freely with consumers.

     "By open prices, I mean that prices for access to the network are determined by a competitive market, not unilaterally by a rate-setter, whether public or private. And the customer can reach the service provider of their choice without having to pay twice."

What industry leaders say
Do you suppose the Internet access industry has the same problem as federal regulators when it comes to defining open access? Let's find out.

Kurt Rahn, EarthLink spokesperson:

    "Our definition of open access is pretty simple, and it's based on the understanding shared by the rest of the ISP industry in all our other dealings with backbone vendors. It's based on a wholesale/retail model—as opposed to the revenue sharing model espoused by the cable folks.

    "Basically, the backbone vendor—in this case a cable company—leases the ISP a line to the customer's home at a competitive rate, and the ISP layers its service on top of the cable company's backbone pipes. The ISP sets the price for the retail service, chooses the customer premise equipment (e.g. modems and set-top boxes), and there's no meddling in the ISP/customer relationship by the backbone vendor."

Gary Baker, Juno Online Services spokesperson:

    "Open access is about providing consumers with choice. Cable subscribers should be able to choose their ISP just as they choose which premium movie channels they subscribe to.

   "'Real' open access requires a level playing field where ISPs can actually compete with one another, not where one ISP is favored over the other because the cable operator benefits from that ISP's success, or where the 'open access' is architected so that only ISPs with AOL-like scale can run a profitable business. This 'real' open access should be the public-interest goal, whether it's achieved through self-regulation by the cable operators themselves or by governmental regulation."

Go to page 2: What industry leaders say—Steve Case, AOL chariman