Can Open Access Overcome Cable Pain Threshold?

Why has a White House Memo on Open Access been buried for a year? The memo is a detailed technological piece that illustrates how complex open access is for both cable companies and independent Internet service providers.

by Patricia Fusco ISP-Planet Managing Editor [June 2, 2000]

The Center for Media Education is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to creating a quality electronic media culture for children and youth, their families and the community. Jeff Chester, CME executive director, this week distributed a copy of the following White House Memo on Open Access as prepared by cable expert Mark Laubach in May 1999.

Chester said he was recently given the White Paper, which was prepared at the request of the White House National Economic Council and he questions the Administration's silence on the issue of open access.

"In my opinion, the report shows that the cable industry was building a closed broadband system, capable of handling only a single ISP," Chester said. "Why has the White House been silent, allowing the closed system to build further out? If they had made this public, along with calls for a open system, then the nation could have had an open, more competitive, broadband cable network much sooner."

"The silence by the WH has delayed meaningful policymaking on this issue," Chester continued. "It also appears, from the report, that millions of folks will be locked behind a broadband 'iron curtain' incapable of accessing a open system without an expensive upgrade. With the FCC further deregulating media ownership, it's imperative to have open access to permit some content diversity and distribution."

Not a conspiracy
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is the Executive Branch's principal voice on domestic and international telecommunications and information technology issues. A spokesperson for the government group said that the White Paper is not part of a larger conspiracy as Chester alleges.

"The White House has not held anything back, much less concealed the report for a year," the NITA representative said. "This report was requested by a White House staffer as part of his evaluation of this issue. It's one of many, many reports that get requested all the time. This one happened to have been submitted a year ago."

The spokesperson added that the report would not have made any difference in the high-decibel level of the open access debate that was going on at the time the White Paper was produced.

"If groups want to push for open access, that's fine. If they want to pick a fight with the White House, they can do that," the NITA spokesperson said. "But this report is certainly not evidence of any government conspiracy."

Decide for yourself
While some groups may desire to reignite the national open access debate, I recommend that you read the document in entirety before reaching any conclusions. The paper is a detailed technological piece that illustrates how complex the issue is for both cable companies and independent Internet service providers.

AT&T Corp. and Excite@Home, Inc. have prudently moved the battle for open access out of the courtrooms and into the cable labs with their declaration of intent to share access with MindSpring. But the litigation-free two years the companies bought to develop shared access may not be enough to time to develop a cost-effective open access solution.

Laubach's White Paper is a technical summary only and needs to be substantiated by a business and financial impact study in order to determine the cable industry's costs to comply with a potential open access order. He contends that if U.S. policy were established to mandate open access provisioning by early 2003, the U.S. cable industry would need to motivated and commit to begin standards enhancement in early year 2000.

It's no great leap to determine that tax cuts and federal subsidies would accompany any mandate for open cable access in the U.S. For now, take some time and review Laubach's study concerning the technological feasibility of making open access happen.

We have the memo for you here
Our index to the study is here.

—end