See you in court

Before I joined the world of telecom journalism, I trained for a number of years to be a sports and/or political reporter. I say and/or because after growing up watching the Chicago Democratic machine slowly crumble, it became apparent that politics is simply another sport - one in which the players wear suits and ties, and the referees are often former players.

Among the most interesting times in Chicago politics is during the process of remapping, when boundaries separating the 50 city wards are shifted to fit the population movements around the city, or more appropriately, to ensure that those in office stay there.

Looking at a current Chicago ward map is like looking at a bowl of Lucky Charms. There's a horseshoe, several stars, a few moons and a couple of clovers.

And although it would be amusing to think the final divisions were made based on a grand geometric design, they actually came about after several lawsuits were settled.

The recent events in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., regarding whether or not AT&T (and by extension MediaOne) should be forced to open up its cable networks, could give the whole country a medley of geography-dependent rules. The issue, which has been brewing since a few days after AT&T announced its acquisition of Tele-Communications Inc., began simmering anew after GTE conducted a demonstration proving that it is technically possible to allow multiple Internet service providers to share space on the same cable network. Almost immediately, @Home and Road Runner piped in with responses that sounded more like whining pleas to regulators for help than real counter arguments.

I never thought we'd see the day when stodgy, boring telcos were the ones pushing the free enterprise envelope while the "entrepreneurial cowboy" cable operators championed a closed system. Perhaps it's the Ma Bell influence, but I suspect this scenario would have played out without AT&T's help - though the legal bucks might have helped speed things up.

No sooner did the cable cry go out than the Los Angeles Information Technology Agency rode to the rescue with a report giving the pro-cable forces a glimmer of hope. The report says cable operators should not be required to unbundle content from access in the provisioning of cable modem services nor should they be required to offer open platforms to competing ISPs.

And while much of the general and trade press has been focused on those two facts, a number of other recommendations sound hauntingly familiar.

Take the suggestion that the city develop a market-based re-opener provision that permits the city to order open access if any cable operator gains more than two-thirds of the market for broadband Internet access in a geographic area.

Sound familiar? A similar proposal - one that would have let regional Bell operating companies into the long-distance market after competitors gained, say, 5% of the local market, didn't survive the final cuts of the Telecom Act, and neither should this scheme.

The fact that cable operators don't pass that many business users gives them an excuse to never open up their systems because it would require capturing almost 100% of the residential market before hitting the magical two-thirds barrier.

It's not a stretch either to envision drawn out court fights over exactly what constitutes two-thirds of the market.

Or how about the request by the L.A. agency that cable operators submit a cable modem deployment plan and adopt a rapid deployment schedule in all franchises? Fat chance that will survive a legal challenge.

What's needed is a comprehensive set of rules governing all forms of broadband Internet access - digital subscriber line, cable modems and yes, even broadband wireless. At the core of the problem is jurisdiction. Cable, and by extension cable modems, have always been locally managed by hordes of crooked regulators. DSL continues to get its rules of engagement from the feds.

Unfortunately, when given the opportunity to make a clear impression on the issue, FCC Chairman William Kennard has given all indications that he prefers a "hands-off" approach that will let AT&T and Time Warner keep their networks closed.

The result will be a jigsaw puzzle of rules that will vary, based on municipality and appellate court rulings, while consumers hungry for bandwidth play the waiting game.