Conflict resolution 101

As I researched the Net neutrality story on page 26, I kept thinking about the parents of an ex-boyfriend and the fight they got into some years ago over a driveway. The driveway sat on the property of the family's vacation home, and for years they shared it with the country inn next door. The problem arose when the inn was sold to a man who operated it more like a bar, with last call at 1:00 a.m. It didn't take long before my ex's parents got fed up with the noise. Their lawyer advised them to put a chain across the driveway, then let the tavern-keeper sue them for a right-of-way.

The driveway wasn't exactly an information superhighway, but like the Internet today, it was undergoing substantial changes in how it was used. Behind the Internet changes are not the tavern-keeper and his clientele but rather the providers of high-bandwidth content and the consumers of that content. The telcos that own the infrastructure underlying the Internet are not considering putting up a chain. But they are contemplating a move that has the potential to be equally unpopular: charging content owners extra for delivering content with a higher quality of service.

Preferring not to escalate their conflict, my ex's parents didn't put up the chain. Instead they sold the place to the tavern-keeper and used the money toward a bigger place that actually suited them better. The tavern-keeper, meanwhile, got a cute house he could rent out in addition to a free and clear driveway. Like him, I suspect content owners also could be persuaded to pay extra for something they have taken for granted until now — if they, too, perceive a benefit.

The ability to offer their customers a one-stop solution that provides both exciting new content and the real-time bandwidth it requires could be attractive to content owners if packaged properly. But before asking them to pay extra for such an offering, telcos must be certain it performs as expected and doesn't noticeably degrade ordinary Internet performance. Those sorts of things can't be ensured without real-world experience. What better way to get that experience than to partner with some content providers to fine-tune the service, offering it to them initially at no charge? Then if the offering performs and the content providers see business benefits, they will perceive it as a service, not a service charge.

For businesses, as for neighbors, the resolution to a conflict can sometimes lead to an improvement in the status quo for both parties. Keep things out of court, and there's a definite opportunity for that kind of outcome on Net neutrality.

CARRIER ETHERNET COMPETITION

Greater competitive pressures shrank the market size of major carrier Ethernet providers, even as overall demand increased. AT&T's market share slipped from 16.2% at mid-year to 13.6% at year's end, while Verizon Business fell to 12.2% — down from 13.5% for the same time period. The changes reflect a growing number of competitors, said Vertical Systems Group in its semi-annual report, including cable companies and independent providers.

Other 26.2%
AT&T 13.6%
Verizon Business 12.2%
Time Warner Telecom 10.7%
Qwest 9.9%
BellSouth 8.5%
Cogent 8.2%
Yipes 5.4%
Level 3 5.3%

Source: Vertical Systems Group