Tired of the dial-up routine that connects your computer to an Internet service provider through your telephone line? If you've been following the debate over control of broadband technologies, you know that faster, smoother means of sending and receiving data over the Internet already exist. But questions about how these services will be provided, who will control the way they function, and what their financial and social costs will be remain unanswered.

Broadband technologies promise high-speed Internet access over upgraded cable and phone lines, and lightning-quick transfer of hefty audio and video files. ("Broadband" means enhanced bandwidth, or the ability to carry larger quantities of data.) Examples of broadband technologies include Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service, which works through standard phone lines, and cable modems, which allow personal computers to hook up to high-speed cable networks. While fewer than one million homes in the United States currently have broadband Internet access, that number is expected to grow to between 10 and 16 million homes by the year 2002. It's likely that most of these homes will become broadband-ready through the upgrading of cable networks--which means that the corporations that control the cable networks will also control the ways, means, and costs of citizens' access to the Internet. In San Francisco, as in most other parts of the country, the corporation cable-master is AT&T.

One of the key issues in the debate over the future of broadband access is whether governments can require AT&T to provide "open access" to the Internet as a condition of the company's cable license. Because AT&T is a partial owner of the Internet service provider Excite@Home, consumer and free-speech advocates fear that the company will require all customers to use Excite@Home or pay a surcharge to use an alternative ISP. In this scenario, the ISP, the content it provides, and the means to transmit the content would all be part of one corporate family. Scary, isn't it? Open-access provisions, on the other hand, would require AT&T to give all ISPs access to its cable lines and allow consumers to use the ISP of their choice without incurring extra charges.

While the federal and state governments have not stepped up to the plate to demand open access, several city governments have. When Portland, Oregon, made open access a condition of AT&T's control over the city's cable franchise, the company filed a lawsuit challenging Portland's authority to impose such a requirement. The city emerged victorious in federal court, but AT&T has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, which is expected to rule on the case by early 2000. Those attempting to influence San Francisco's evolving broadband access policies are eagerly awaiting the outcome.

"Over the long term, the outcome of this fight will play a large role in determining who will be the dominant telecommunications and Internet players for the next decade," says Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project.

AT&T in the past has threatened to retract promises to upgrade San Francisco's cable network if the Board of Supervisors institutes open-access provisions. But in an apparent change of heart, the company announced in December that it plans to offer access to competing ISPs. Experts have speculated that the shift in stance is an attempt to garner support from officials at the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department, who are reviewing AT&T's bid to acquire the cable giant MediaOne.

In any case, AT&T's latest announcement is little more than a goodwill gesture that can be withdrawn whenever the company sees fit. "Access that is granted as a privilege ordained by AT&T is no substitute for access that is regulated by law," says Laura Stein, professor of media studies at the University of San Francisco.

Also at stake in impending broadband policy decisions are answers to critical questions about what services cable companies will be required to provide. What if AT&T neglects to upgrade cable systems in low-income communities? Can cities require AT&T to provide public affairs content in exchange for control over the cable lines? Should local governments use negotiations over broadband to establish more public-access channels? AT&T stockholders benefit from returns on their investment, but what is the public's return on the investment of the century--the granting of an exclusive cable franchise? Is a corporate-funded upgrade of our cable networks worth monopoly control over Internet access?

"If the cost of upgrading is that the public has no legal right of access to the system, then the cost is too high," says Stein.

Stay tuned.