Here we go again. When is an embedded network partly a "public good"? That's the question the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on, as we - once again - question whether it makes sense to partition a "network" from the "services" that run on it. The Baby Bells were forced to "unbundle" their networks to competitors a few years back, so why shouldn't the Cable Companies open up their coax-based network to other ISPs?
Arguably, the parallels with the Bells are beginning to break down. After all, the 'twisted pair' network that forms the basis of Plain Old Telephony Service was built up over a hundred years, often with government grants in the form of property access rights, monetary disbursements and rural incentives. Were it not for these grants, some North Dakotans might still not have phone service!
But Cable is different. Not only is it newer (some estimates suggest that $90B has been spent in the last decade), but future investment could well be hampered if to do so means subsidizing your competitor. And, while the telcos have squeezed a lot of new services out of the twisted pair, it looks like more and more 'value-add' services won't need to come from your network provider. When such services as VOIP really take off in the home, you're as likely to see independent offerings from multiple sources... imagine getting caller-ID, voice mail, and a host of other services -- all from different providers. It may not sound appealing but if the price is right, you can bet you'll see a lot of competition there. The last mile may be coming a commodity anyhow, so let those who dare build in this space be assured of a fair shot at a return on their investment. In all likelihood, the real competition will be on the application layer, not access to the last mile.
That's just my opinion --- I could be wrong.
Yahoo! News - Supreme Court to Hear ISP, Cable Dispute
