Broadband gets ugly

Among the hundreds of nonsensical sports phrases athletes spout and reporters write, one of my favorites is "winning ugly." Boiled down, I've taken the phrase to mean winning in a fashion that is slightly unconventional. I've never really understood the concept, perhaps because I've always understood that the objective in games or contests is to win, regardless of style, as long as you play within the rules.

I'm reminded of the term in the brewing battle between cable operators and DSL providers. While it's still uncommon to have a choice of high-speed options, the number of cities that have both alternatives provides a peek at what the competitive scene will look like. It isn't pretty, and it's about time. Take two of the most publicized examples, both involving SBC.

SBC recently complained to the FCC that a low-level Time Warner manager in Texas asked employees to order and then cancel DSL service from SBC to gauge how far the incumbent had progressed in rolling out the service. While certainly sneaky, deceptive and down-right slimy, the tactic is no different from a local retail merchant cruising the aisles of a nearby Wal-Mart to check its inventory and pricing.

SBC's charge that this tactic counts against its attempt to enter the long-distance market in Texas speaks more to the frailty of its application than to Time Warner's attempt to redefine field research. More disconcerting is that SBC fought back in true telco fashion by dispatching its legal arsenal to attack the problem.

The second case comes from California where Excite@Home charged that Pacific Bell (owned by SBC) created misleading advertising because Pacific Bell correctly pointed out that cable modems are built on a shared medium and will suffer in performance as more subscribers sign up for the service.

In its defense, Pacific Bell produced a rare commodity - a non-sappy commercial for a telco-based service. No images of Grandma joyously receiving a call from the grandkids halfway across the country. No tear-jerking moments of long lost pals finally connecting over twisted pair. Just in-your-face comedy based on the ridiculous concept of an idyllic suburban town rioting over the congestion caused by everyone signing up for "high-speed" cable modem connections.

If this is what the battle between the two broadband providers is evolving into, grab the popcorn, get the clicker and let Madison Avenue do its magic. No longer able to take the shot-gun approach of targeting every mammal with vocal chords, carriers offering high-speed Internet access must be selective in marketing to an audience that is better educated, better paid and more Internet savvy than the general populace.

The above examples are just two of the more publicized instances. Beneath the surface, dozens of similar cases exist.

I recently sat through a briefing with a well-known telco vendor whose chief technology officer bragged that he planned to order AT&T's local cable telephony service and cancel it after the three-month trial period just to get a closer look at the customer premises equipment.

Is it fair that this person is adding an expensive truck roll to the cost side of a "new" carrier? No. Is it a sneaky tactic to gauge how far his customers' competitors have progressed in their technology? Yes. Is it winning ugly? Yes. Is it winning nonetheless?