Road to nowhere

(Telephony magazine) - On the surface it seems like such a simple idea: If cable operators want to get into the game of providing high-speed Internet access services, then regulators should require them to follow the same rules as telcos offering DSL.

Notwithstanding the cable industry's argument that high-speed Internet access over a hybrid fiber/coax (HFC) network is somehow a cable service while the same product flowing over copper twisted pair is a telecom service, regulators in various jurisdictions have been trying for some time to develop a level set of rules.

First and foremost among those rules is giving ISPs that aren't affiliated with cable operators the opportunity to use the coax connection into the home. The rationale also seemed simple--almost populist: Give subscribers the opportunity to use their ISP of choice while opening up another potential revenue source for cable operators that could wholesale access to their networks.

But like most things in life that seem simple, open access is filled with pitfalls and potential booby traps. And while the open access issue has delved into a political cauldron of lawsuits and cross-accusations, the fact remains that today, those wanting a choice of high-speed access providers over their existing cable plant are out of luck. Moreover, while the technology exists to offer multiple selections, political inertia and economic realities likely won't give those end users a choice any time soon.

Keeping secrets?

Just how political has the issue become? That question went unanswered when posed to several cable operators, and among those that did answer, many refused to divulge any details lest they tip their hand.

"We have to be very cautious of what we say right now," said one vendor spokesman who requested anonymity for his company.

Even entities that normally are relied on for unbiased opinion are tiptoeing around the issue.

In a cautiously worded report released in October, the federal government's General Accounting Office warned that the development of broadband access service threatens consumer choice because cable operators currently force users into selecting an affiliated ISP.

Moreover, the report presented two possible approaches to broadening choices, including amending the Communications Act of 1934 and asking the FCC to convene a committee to level out regulations between cable, telco and wireless providers of high-speed services.

"Our survey found that one of the reasons broadband users commonly cited for choosing an ISP was that, in effect, they had no choice--the ISP came bundled with the physical transport service," the report read.

All on technicalities

Perhaps the best indication that the open access issue is as much political as technical was an October request from the FCC's cable services bureau that the industry develop a protocol that would open competition over cable networks.

To be sure, not all discussion in open access is political, and a number of tests currently are underway that push the market toward multiple providers.

However, given that there are about 20 possible methods to providing open access, according to vendors developing the technologies, initial trials donÕt appear to be rushing toward a solution.

"There are a lot of different ways to do this, but no one seems to agree on the technology," said a spokeswoman for the openNET Coalition, a group of ISPs that is lobbying for open access to incumbent cable networks. "And the problem with cable operators is that they're married to DOCSIS. Once they start using DOCSIS is when it becomes difficult."

With DOCSIS already firmly entrenched as the standard for cable modems, though, vendors and operators say they will work with the existing technology.

Viewed from the highest level, cable operators have four broad choices of technology, according to several vendors. These are frequency division, two IP-based solutions and a fourth based on content switching.

Frequency division, the most simplistic of the approaches, lets network operators divide up spectrum on their cable plant and assign ISP specific slots. Such an approach, while possibly easy to implement, won't scale and likely won't be used by any cable operators in North America, says Erik Gilbert, solutions manager for managed access at Cisco Systems.

Instead, cable operators likely will opt for an approach that approximates the look of a virtual private network (VPN) or a policy routing-based approach. Cisco for its part is pushing VPNs based on multiprotocol label switching.

"The one that's being trialed is using a policy-based routing method to route traffic to the appropriate ISP," Gilbert says. "There are some known issues with that one in terms of scalability. It works quite well, but the question is, does it work as it scales to millions of users?"

VPNs by contrast provide an advantage in their scalability and ability to separate the traffic for the ISPs, which lets them provide varying service level agreements, Gilbert adds.

A fourth potential architecture revolves around content switching, which allows cable operators to segregate content based on type and end user.

Nortel Networks, through its acquisition of Shasta Networks, already is looking at such a solution, says Roy Perry, vice president of strategy for Nortel's local Internet group. But details are hard to come by. "I think it's very early in the process, and everything is sort of up in the air," Perry says.

Trials and tribulations

Ironically, some of the earliest trials of allowing customers a choice in ISPs have been conducted by cable overbuilders. Sparked as much by efforts to disprove initial claims by cable operators that multiple ISPs on a cable network was too difficult, both Ameritech and GTE announced they would test the concept on their HFC cable plants.

Neither went very far.

Ameritech's trial never got off the ground due in part to its acquisition by SBC Communications, which has made no secret that it's searching for a buyer for the Ameritech cable group. GTE did launch a limited trial in Clearwater, Fla., using a service agent concept under which users choose among America Online, CompuServe Classic and GTE.net for ISP service. However, GTE's acquisition by Verizon Communications (formerly Bell Atlantic) also has put its cable properties on the block.

"It was underway at least six months and we learned a lot from it, but since those properties are up for sale, it will be up to the new owners as to whether they want to continue the trial," says a Verizon spokeswoman.

Initially, many operators are opting for simpler approaches.

Perhaps the most important test of multiple access providers, considering the company's size and ability to shape general technical direction in the cable industry, is AT&T Broadband's trial in Boulder, Colo. Kicked off in October, the company is offering up to 500 customers a choice of ISPs over its HFC network. Seven ISPs--along with AT&T-controlled Excite@Home--have signed on to the trial with a mixture of national and regional players represented.

AT&T wouldn't answer questions regarding the technical details of what it calls the Broadband Choice trial. However, in announcing the trial, AT&T did reveal some basic facts, including its intent to have ISPs share in the customer care process by directly connecting the company's network and developing interfaces to its back-office operations. Early testing of network and interface technology has yielded positive results, though several vendors and other operators say it is very early in the process and a number of issues have yet to be addressed.

Key to the AT&T trial is the development of a service agent, which actually consists of a bundle of software that sits on the user's desktop PC. Via the service agent, users can select their choice of ISP and, in some cases, can even specify the speed and type of service. The service agent also will have diagnostic and customer care functions that will help customers identify where additional support is available.

However, according to one vendor, such capabilities are not perfected just yet.

"We don't have the capability to let you choose a provider just yet, but we're very close to making that happen," says Rich Phillips, chief communications officer for Simplified, a software vendor that is working with a number of cable operators to provide a choice of ISPs.

Though not working with AT&T in its Boulder trial, Simplified is pushing a solution that puts agent-like software in the network.

"We don't think the software solution has to reside in the CPE," Phillips says. "We think that's an expensive proposition."

Just as important as the client end is the back-office operation.

"The biggest problem technically is provisioning these customers. Setting them up is going to be tricky at best," says Chad Thornburg, vice president of engineering for High-Speed Access, an ISP that provides service to a number of smaller cable operators.

Other mundane issues such as how to bill clients in a multi-ISP environment are just now being examined, he adds.

End user enigmas

Closer to the customer, there also are issues that are familiar to cable operators. Just as contention within the cable plant becomes an issue when too many users are connected at the same time, cable operators also must worry about contention among service providers.

"One of the technical challenges we'll face is keeping one ISP from using more bandwidth than they're allotted," says Thornburg. "The MSO is going to have be able to charge for the bandwidth."

Indeed, the ability to charge for wholesale access hits on the crux of the reason many say widescale open access to cable networks won't happen any time soon. Unlike DSL, which can be provided over varying degrees of existing copper wire, cable modem access requires basic upgrades, including installation of reverse amplifiers. And while much of the latter part of the 1990s was spent upgrading existing plant, it's still not done. More important, it didnÕt come cheap. In fact, the sheer number of cable operators offering high-speed Internet access is still relatively low, with few areas having more than a handful.

Conceivably, cable operators would be able to charge for wholesale access, though exactly how that model works is up for debate.

"They don't want the tail to wag the dog," says Nortel's Perry. "They want to determine the right business model and let that determine the technical solution. And the business model is a little bit problematic."

Part of the problem comes from the fact that the vast majority of the investment required to provide high-speed access over HFC is in the plant. Cable operators naturally would like to recoup as much of the investment by charging non-affiliated ISPs a hefty percentage of revenue for access.

ISPs by contrast say access rates should reflect the DSL model in which telcos charge set rates based on specific cost formulas.

"It's apples and oranges with DSL because with DSL you already have the copper in place," says Perry. "There's a different set of issues with DSL."

The lack of technologies that would allow multiple ISPs over the cable plant is throwing another wildcard into the mix, says Simon Dieppe, an analyst with Ovum Research in London.

"If you look at the unbundling issue in DSL, it's easy for some new competitor to have some type of ownership of the customer," Dieppe says. "The problem with cable, where you have essentially an Ethernet ring, is trying to get a direct link from the new entrant to the customer. At the moment, there's no way of doing that because everything comes from the headend."