by Deborah Taylor Tate
Interesting how some phrases
gain a negative connotation. "Special access," a telecommunications
pricing structure which dates back to the original 1984 AT&T divestiture,
is one of those phrases. The fact that special access – essentially dedicated
private lines – was devised a quarter century ago during
one of the largest divestitures in history is probably an indication that the
legacy service shouldn’t be so controversial in today's multi-platform,
innovation rich, technological age. However, "special access" has
been hijacked by some pro-consumer groups seeking to impose government
regulation even in the midst of this competitive explosion.
Just take a look at what
special access really is used for – almost three decades later – and I bet you
will agree the service is not only positive but critical to our communications
infrastructure and sometimes even our lives.
As telecommunications moved
from the original monopoly environment (think Ma Bell) to a much more
competitive arena, communications services began to be provided by various types
of entities and players. Originally, new competitors secured market entry by
hand-picking lucrative business customers. Soon, a myriad of government-developed
regulatory machinations sprung up around special access. From allowing competitors to use monopoly
lines and facilities at discounted prices to allowing mere
"reselling" of services with an authorized profit, baffling rules and
regulations were later developed to assist in meeting the goal of
"competition" in the "new" Telecommunications Act of 1996.
As we all know, competition
can and frequently does result in lower prices. Competition can also mean a
choice of goods that are priced differentially, with consumers making decisions
based on their particular needs and various price points. For the simplest
example, look at automobiles. You can buy a Prius and save money on gas but not
necessarily on the sticker price. You can buy an older used car or a brand new
state of the art luxury vehicle. In each example, the consumer weighs the
benefits and the price and makes the buying decision, not the government.
With the explosion of the digital
age, suddenly consumers had more abundant choices in their telephony services. As communications became more critical and
more industry sectors relied more heavily on new and innovative communications
services, businesses required more personal attention and security. Inevitably,
some businesses demanded dedicated lines.
Think about how the healthcare
sector has progressed, due in large part to the innovations in information and
communications technologies. A huge institution doing global research, such as
Vanderbilt University, wants to contract for specific bandwidth, data speeds
and extremely secure lines. This might be used for IP-protected research among
faculty, shared medical research with other institutions, or even storage for huge
volumes of patient information. Not to mention the requirements for robust
video in performing remote surgery or remote imaging review by specialists from
another state, or another country. Each of these services requires, and the
customer – Vanderbilt – demands, high levels of stability, safety and security.
None of us wants latency to occur during a surgical procedure or a diagnosis to
be impossible due to a nebulous image.
Thus, the phrase
"special access" grew in import. Certainly, it grew in significance for
healthcare providers, but also for many other industries, from financial
institutions to auto makers. Most of us would agree this was a very positive
turn of events and a phrase that merely reflected its definition: providing certain
access in special circumstances.
However, some competitors
used this phrase as a way to exact even more government intervention and
attempts to "regulate" what and how private enterprises like
telecommunications companies could contract with large businesses with specific
communications needs.
At the same time, these
competitors refused to provide information concerning customer locations served
and number of customers served, or their own pricing or tariffs. And the
government thus far has not required them to do so. Again, in many cases, these
competitors were merely "riding" on the same wires that the phone
company had built, adding little or no facility investment of their own.
Now, even in this digital age
of striking innovation and substantial investment by broadband companies – well
over $300 billion investment in the last
ten years – new and innovative technologies across wireless platforms, and even
satellite delivery mechanisms, these same tired decades-old arguments from the
80's are resurfacing. And government interference and regulation continue to raise
costs, which are ultimately passed on to the consumer.
And, if incumbents’ prices
are forced down by such interference and regulation, the development of further
competition in markets which already support competition to some extent could
be forestalled.
I don't know about you, but I
think that the Vanderbilts out there, as well as our nation's small business
owners, are smart enough to make their own decisions about their communications
needs and services, without government bureaucrats in the middle.
And, whether you are a
doctor, a patient, or a world-class researcher, special access sounds like a
pretty good thing to me.
Posts
