Slashdot Mirror
AOL/Time-Warner Opens Cable Network to Other ISPs
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between Time Warner Inc. And America Online, Inc.
REGARDING OPEN ACCESS BUSINESS PRACTICES
February 29, 2000
1. This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") sets out the commitments that AOL Time Warner will make to provide open access (i.e., to make a choice of multiple Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") available to consumers) on its broadband cable systems. It is the intention of the parties to enter into as quickly as possible a binding definitive agreement to provide broadband AOL service on Time Warner's cable systems, which will be used as a model for the commercial agreements that will be available to other ISPs.
2. AOL Time Warner is committed to offer consumers a choice among multiple ISPs. Consumers will not be required to purchase service from an ISP that is affiliated with AOL Time Warner in order to enjoy broadband Internet service over AOL Time Warner cable systems. AOL Time Warner intends to encourage actively other cable operators similarly to provide consumers with a choice of broadband ISP offerings.
3. AOL Time Warner will effectuate such choice for consumers by negotiating arms-length commercial agreements with both affiliated (such as AOL) and unaffiliated ISPs that wish to offer service on the AOL Time Warner broadband cable systems. Pursuant to such commercial agreements, AOL Time Warner will partner with ISPs to offer consumers a choice of competing broadband Internet service offerings.
4. AOL Time Warner will not place any fixed limit on the number of ISPs with which it will enter into commercial arrangements to provide broadband service to consumers. AOL Time Warner will provide its consumers with a broad choice among ISPs, consistent with providing a quality consumer experience and any technological limitations in providing multiple ISPs on its broadband cable systems.
5. The terms of the commercial agreements between AOL Time Warner and ISPs wishing to provide broadband service will not discriminate on the basis of whether the ISP is affiliated with AOL Time Warner. Thus, while the economic arrangements reached by AOL Time Warner and ISPs wishing to provide broadband service will vary depending on a number of factors (such as the speed, marketing commitments, and nature and tier of the service desired to be offered), AOL Time Warner will not discriminate in those economic arrangements based upon whether or not the ISP is affiliated with AOL Time Warner. In addition, AOL Time Warner will operate its broadband cable systems in a manner that does not discriminate among ISP traffic based on affiliation with AOL Time Warner.
6. AOL Time Warner will allow ISPs to provide video streaming. AOL Time Warner recognizes that some consumers desire video streaming, and AOL Time Warner will not block or limit it.
7. AOL Time Warner will allow ISPs to connect to its broadband cable systems without purchasing broadband backbone transport from AOL Time Warner.
8. Consistent with technological capability, AOL Time Warner will offer ISPs the choice to partner with it to offer broadband Internet service on a national (on all AOL Time Warner cable systems), regional or local basis, in order to facilitate the ability of consumers to choose among ISPs of different size and scope. AOL Time Warner is committed to bring the benefits of the Internet to all Americans, and will not allow ISPs to offer "redlined" service to only a portion of an AOL Time Warner cable system that is fully enabled to provide broadband service.
9. AOL Time Warner is also committed to allow both the cable operator and the ISP to have the opportunity to have a direct relationship with the consumer. Accordingly, both the cable operator and the ISP will be allowed to market and sell broadband service directly to customers. When AOL Time Warner's cable systems sell broadband Internet service to a customer, they will be entirely responsible for billing and collection. When an ISP sells broadband Internet service directly to a customer, it may, if it so chooses, bill and collect from the customer directly.
10. This MOU represents an initial step by Time Warner and AOL to articulate the terms, conditions and parameters under which a combined AOL Time Warner will offer consumers access to multiple ISPs on its broadband cable systems. It is the intention of the parties to continue to refine those particulars in a manner that is responsive to, and consistent with, the desire of consumers to have a choice among multiple ISPs offering broadband service and the still-evolving nature of the cable infrastructure.
11. All of the foregoing is subject to all pre-existing obligations of Time Warner, including without limitation Time Warner's agreements with Serviceco, LLC (d/b/a Road Runner) and its fiduciary and other obligations to its partners. However, Time Warner will endeavor to reach agreements and accommodations with third parties to which pre-existing obligations are due that would permit the full implementation of the commitments described herein as quickly as possible.
--------------------------
Stephen M. Case
Gerald M. Levin
America Online, Inc.
Time Warner Inc.
-----------------------------
Thanks to attorney Don Weightman for providing the above text.
I use RoadRunner for my home access. All I care about is the bandwidth and the IP addresses, everything else is just fluff that I am happier to get elsewhere. I want to be able to get a discount for not using ANY of their ISP services, and go elsewhere for mail, news, website space, etc.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Is this real, or FUD?
Now that Congress is involved,
draw your conclusions.
---
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
It's a win-win for AOLTW. If a subscriber wants AOL, AOLTW makes money directly from subscription fees. If the subscriber wants another ISP, AOLTW makes money from the access aggreement between themselves and the ISP. As long as they live up to their promise to treat all ISPs equally, the competition should make it a win for consumers as well.
:-)
By "consumer choice," they mean that TW cable customers can choose from multiple ISPs who offer broadband over TW's cable lines. AOL will be one of those ISPs, with AOL's client and "features" on top. It would be nice if I could get Time Warner cable over Comcast's lines, but Microsoft would sooner switch to ELF binaries!
Keith Russell
OS != Religion
This sig intentionally left blank.
Most interesting paragraph in the article was the last:
Call me cynical, but I doubt that AOL Time Warner is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
The official statement says little about the conditions ISPs must meet, and nothing about how this will really shake down for users. The terms might be odious, just as some current arrangements are.
I always thought that Slashdot would be the vehicle for getting information about the industry that was ignored by the mainstream media but lately it seems to be 1-3 days behind the mainstream and a pointer to the mainstream media article in any case. I'm reading things on CNN and News.com that I would have expected here first and other things here that just seem to be posted to fill the article quota for the day. Is there really any point to providing pointers to other services like this? Doesn't anyone surf any other news sites besides /.?
Will, you assert that most consumers are lazy. I'm going on the assumption that this is lazy in relation to "computer stuff."
It seems to me that most consumers (the masses) just don't want to waste a lot of time doing things that people like you and I fine interesting and challenging. Given that, I don't think it's fair to setereotype consumers as lazy just because they don't like to spend gobs of time doing things that you or I like to do.
And even that won't mean squat. They who giveth access can taketh access away, once the Feds are otherwise occupied. Any competitor with functioning brain cells should laugh at this, and be busy trying to figure out a way to provide access that doesn't rely on AOL/TW.
Are there really significant numbers people out there who can't see through stuff like this, or is it just such a part of corp culture that they can't not produce BS like this?
Their proprietary software is what inspires brand loyalty in their customers. AOL is not just another ISP. They provide more of an experience, rather than just a pipe. I don't think they even want to be just an ISP... The customer base is much less stable.
For instance, I've gone through 5 or 6 local ISP's and finally settled on a cable connection in the past year... Soon as DSL becomes available in my area, i'll switch to that. Why? Because I'm just looking for pipes. Therefore, I'm not AOL's ideal customer either.
The pro side of this is that AOL can continue to offer whatever it likes to it's customers, but other ISP's can continute to offer flat fee access to their subscribers, using AOL's pipes. There won't be any worries that in order to access faster connections that you'll need to be running proprietary software that may not be available for your chosen platform.
I live in a very rural part of the country (literally in Slapout, Alabama... yes that is the name of the town) which is serviced by Time Warner Cable. We have been left behind in the high-access cable modem market (despite Time Warner's promise of cable modem access by 2000). Hopefully, this will soon bring high bandwidth access to my area.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
3. AOL Time Warner will effectuate such choice for consumers by negotiating arm's-length commercial agreements with both affiliated (such as AOL) and unaffiliated ISPs that wish to offer service on the AOL Time Warner broadband cable systems.
I can see the meeting.
"Welcome to the AOL/Time Warner ISP negotiations meeting. Glad you all could make it. Now, let me make this clear, even though AOL owns the cable and is in direct competition with all of you, we'd like to remind you that, althouth you will be negotiating with an AOL company, AOL will have no say in the matter and will not recieve preferential treatment."
--
Pardon me, but how do you keep yourself at arms length from yourself?
And even if they could wouldn't their stockholders be beholden to tell them not to?
--
+&x
note: Keep moderating this as funny, unless you have a choice of three or four cable companies in your area and your cable bills have gone down over the last six years.
--
+&x
The articles keep referring to "consumer choice" when it comes to selecting an ISP. I thought consumers already had a choice.
I think this is the usual marketing spin. It's certainly true from a certain perspective. Allowing other ISP's to utilize their existing infrastructure will give consumers more choices in terms of Tier-3 ISP's providing high-bandwidth connections.
Everyone seems to be asking: "why would they do this?" Because they get to *lease* the use of that infrastructure to said tier-3 ISP's. The consumer has a choice (or at least thinks he does), but all those choices ultimately put money in their pocket.
Very interesting approach...
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
Yes, as far as the internet is concerned. For some (most?) computer-illiterate people, "AOL == the WWW == the internet". Just because AT&T or Microsoft has a good brand name doesn't mean that their online service will benefit from that brand name. How many customers does AT&T WorldNet have these days? How about MSN?
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
Just great. All cable services are already over subscribed. The tech support unanimously sucks. The reports are everywhere.
All this will do is make matters worse. I've already watched my "Blazing Speed" get reduced to a relative crawl (still faster than a 56k modem, but not by much -- and dropping fast).
If this really happens there will be absolutely make cable modems worthless.
Be careful what you wish for - it may turn and bite you in the ass.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
The phone companies where forced to allow ISP's into their xDSL networks. AOL owns the world when it comes to media, so why would the gov't not force them to abide by the same rules that it has pressed down on the baby bells? Hell AOL can now buy all of the baby bells and not worry about the capitol offset.
I do like the fact that AOL is starting to be proactive in it's relationships with outside companies, this shows that they are ready to become the mega corp. that they aspire to be.
Now can we get AOL to give the tech savvy a version of their software that we can customize the way we use their service? That would be a cold day in hell.
Even at that, Time Warner Cable's prior contracts nuke lots of this - Road Runner's deal with Time Warner is as exclusive ISP. Ditto AtHome with the cable companies they're carried on. Nothing will change until either Road Runner and @Home willingly back out of their deal or they expire.
Don't know how true this is (it sounds reasonable, at least), however, Time Warner carries a lot of weight within Road Runner. Something to the tune of a 40% stake. They'd only have to convince one of the other partners involved and they could change that exclusive policy. I think an easy target would be Microsoft, since an open cable network would benefit Microsoft because then they could push MSN.
Not that I think MSN is a viable alternative to anything...
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
My guess is that they want to do this because they believe they will make money at it. They believe that AOL can sell a more attractive ISP package for the average home user to the current Time-Warner cable modem customers than other ISPs can. They may be right. If they are, they make money, and they avoid having complex regulations shoved down their throat that will hamper them in future endeavors. Whatever criticisms we may have of AOL, it has attracted a huge customer base by offering them a service that appeals to them. The price and features are selling.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
so what in the hell is wrong with that?
are you telling me that just because AOL/TW is a big (big big big) company, their resources should be public property? when you invest billions of dollars buying a company that has spent billions of dollars developing an infrastructure, that infrastructure BELONGS TO YOU and if you want to charge people to use it, you're fully entitled to do so.
it would be mean and unfriendly from some points-of-view for AOL/TW to not allow companies to even pay for the infrastructure, but I think that the best you can hope for is that other ISP's are allowed to buy bandwidth on the infrastructure, unless of course youre some kind of "FREE EVERYTHING" hippy.
I thought that was it. You're right, it's dragonmount. I've had no problems with it so far, but I'm not really using it for serious work or anything......
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Why not just use the free WINIP (www.winip.com), I think there's a linux version, before I get flamed for assuming you use windows. It gives you a name that remaps to your IP. (BTW, I have roadrunner and your IP only changes when your cable modem looses power. Unfortunately, It seems like it gets confused and has to be reset about once a week or so.)
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
If you think about it, this isn't surprising at all. I believe they have a contract with RoadRunner for ISP service for a couple of years. They want to rollout AOL -- of course they're going to 'open' the lines. That way they don't break contract with RR and can roll out (and probably underprice) AOL. When the contract expires, poof, EOOA (End of Open Access).
That is great if it is true. Saying to an ISP - you can carry our content, but you have to carry all of it sounds pretty good to me. Keeping censorship at bay? Then again, does this mean that if a provider is not "fully enabled to provide broadband service" they will be permitted to offer "redlined" content?
AOL Can't have a monopoly if it doesn't have access to the @Home network. By opening up their own lines, they are just daring Comcast/TCI etc to do the same. @Home cannot open up their bandwidth to other ISP's without opening it up to AOL. Jeff
Read the story over at Wired.
Bjarke Roune
Smart move on AOL's part. The net community was almost unaminous in there opposition of the merger. They just took teeth out of that arguement. Now the only questions are os's allowed, etc. Guess the consumer can benefit from politics after all. Must be a cold day in hell.
Yeah. I was an idealist once, too. Now I would like nothing more than to see corporate law completely disappear.
You just don't see it as a student. Watch "head office" once. It's very exaggerated, but very true.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I'll believe it when I see it. I trust a large corporation like I would trust a cat not to eat my pet birds.
Promises were not made to be broken to a large corporation, they were never intended to be kept in the first place. I think anyone who even gives this the time of day until they are actually using their cable network on another ISP is setting themselves up for a fall.
And don't harp on me for this. Corporations have made their own bed.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
This is a good move for AOL Time Warner for the reasons you propose but i think that the real reasons for the move are two other. One is the basic fact that Time warner only controls about 20% of the cable market whereas AOL + Compuserve are 60% of the ISP market. And since AOL Time Warner has no interest in seeing their ISP share drop they are presuring the other cable companies to do the same. Content is King and for most people AOL is content. so aol "bought" Time Warner to open their lines and thus get all other cable companies to open up their lines. This way they eliminate the largest threat so far to their ISP dominance. The fact that AOL Also happened to get some content in the deal is a happy accident but not the main goal of their purchase. The second reson for openig the lines to other ISPs is about the cable dsl contest. Usually in each movement in technology many different ones appear as the next step but after a while eveyone standarizes on one particular technology. AOL by opening their cable lines to other ISPs is letting other do some of the work in getting people to sign up for cable instead of dsl. Some people will never in a million years have an aol account however they might consider having an account with an isp that uses aol's cabble lines. This is just an example of the many ways having the open lines will benefit aol time warner in the dsl cabble contest.
1. The AOL car would have a TOP speed of 40 MPH yet have a 200 MPH speedometer.
2. The AOL car would come equipped with a NEW and fantastic 8-Track tape player.
3. The car would often refuse to start and owners would just expect this and try again later.
4. The windshield would have an extra dark tint to protect the driver from seeing better cars.
5. AOL would sell the same model car year after year and claim it's the NEW model.
6. Every now and then the brakes on the AOL car would just "lock-up" for no apparent reason.
7. The AOL car would have a very plain body style but would have lots' of pretty colors and lights.
8. The AOL car would have only one door but it would have 5 extra seats for family members.
9. Anyone dissatisfied could return the car but must continue to make payments for 6 months.
10. If an AOL car owner received 3 parking tickets AOL would take the car off of them.
11. The AOL car would have an AOL Cell phone that can only place calls to other AOL car cell phones.
12. AOL would pass a new car law forbidding AOL car owners from driving near other car dealerships.
13. AOL car mechanics would have no experience in car repair.
14. Younger AOL car drivers would be able to make other peoples AOL cars stall just for fun.
15. It would not be possible to upgrade your AOL car stereo.
16. AOL cars would be forced to use AOL gas that cost 20% more and gave worse mileage.
17. Anytime an AOL car owner saw another AOL car owner he would wonder, M/F/age?
18. It would be common for AOL car owners to divorce just to marry another AOL car owner.
19. AOL car owners would always claim to be older or younger than they really are.
20. AOL cars would come with a steering wheel and AOL would claim no other cars have them.
21. Every time you close the door on the AOL car it would say, "Good-Bye."
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
crying about how the everything is going to be clogged you evidently don't understand the term "broadband." Broadband, unlike baseband (ethernet), allows you to "channelize" the medium. Each channel has only a certain amount of bandwidth. Your cable modem is on one of these channels. Now, (i don't know if it's feasible to do this with current cablemodem tech) the competitor can put their cable modems on their *own* channel and this will not effect the bandwidth of your ISP's channel. To me this seems to be the most elegant solution there is to open access. Most cable operators would only have to set aside around 5-10 channels for cablemodem use if this avenue is followed. I see problems with routing based on IP or other protocol level means of providing open access. Some of those being a clogged pipe (channel in this case) and packet filtering. This is a step in the right direction though, but don't forget AOL is doing it most likely to get the heat off of Congress to pass legislation mandating open access.
This weeks Barrons has a cool little blurb on cable and what deregulation has done to help decrease prices and increase competition.
As a long time user of the internet, frankly I cant live with out it (I actully go into witdrawl when i don't read slashdot regularly) I have a few intresting anecdotes about the isp's i've used.
The first isp I used was a local company called Internet Maine, (this was back in the day of the 486), there I had all sorts of problems getting on finaly it came down to me having to manually input all the inits and commands everytime I wanted to log on. A very time consuming process just to get on the poor web pages that existed at the time. Finally I grew tired of this huge process I had to go through to very little info, and cancelled the servise.
A few years later I tried an up and coming service known as AOL, I was ammazed by the quality and ease of their interface. However i was also amazed that I had to re-dial for a good 40 min just to get on, an even more time consuming task that that which I had previously endured. But the quality was good, and so I stuck with AOL until an incident, in which much of my private user information was made public including cc#, phone #, and address. I was swamped in spam, and credit fraud. I promptly canceled my AOL account and have since not reccomended them to anyone.
A year or so later I again went through a local isp called Megalink who offered me cheap rates in exchange for paying in advance. The installaton process was a real pain, and the stupid thing greys out the save password button (this wouldent be a pain but megalink makes you have a 10 char password that is case-sensitive and must include symbols). Im currently still using Megalink even though the best connection I ever get is 36.6 with my 56k v.90 modem.
Now as I work for an Internet Support Provider I am suppost to get discounted rates to Megalink, however I am still 6 months away from having to renew my yearly subscription.
Through another buisness connection with MSN I can get free acess, but of course there is no local number in my area.
And on another note there wont even be cable acess in my area for another 2 years, because im not in Time Warners zone, and thus have to wait for there competitor to offer cable service.
Anyway if this my story make any diffrence in the world, thats all I was aiming for. Sorry if its bad, its only my first post here, and obviously spelling isn't my thing.
Being British I haven't got much idea what their cable TV service is like, but I know I wouldn't subscribe to AOL. Doesn't matter how broad the pipe is, they'd have to be so much cheaper than the rival services for me to buy AOL over their cable.
This way, however, people who wouldn't touch AOL with a 10-foot pole will be able to use their cable, so giving them money that would otherwise have gone to a rival. After all, the ISPs have to rent the access from them.
It's a win-win for them, and a sign of how short-sighted AT&T are being that they're restricting themselves to Excite@Home.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
CNBC just announced on the air that the AOL/Time-Warner announcement will be one of the topics of discussion on their show The Edge this evening at 6 pm EST. I didn't find a mailto: link to send them questions. Combining the Slashdot Effect with the CNBC Effect on this issue would be an interesting experiment.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
MEEPT!!!!! shall now enlighten the masses with a lesson on Good Business Sense, as illustrated by his avocado-squeezing friends at AOL-Time-Warner-USA.
This MEEPT!!!!! was brought to you by the Harvard School of Business, the letters D, S, W and the number 20.
MEEPT!!!!!
- ISPs will jump in and shovel money at AOL faster than individual subscribers would. More instant capital can't hurt.
- More capital means more infrastruture sooner. There are still many areas of the country that don't have cable internet access. First-to-market in these areas is still going to mean a lot of cash.
- Multiple companies depending on their cable infrastructure means a more robust business model -- less suseptible to consumer-level price fluctuations, less vulnerable to Congressional bullying.
I would never recommend depending on the good will of a corporation, but I think in there are enough selfish reasons for AOL to do this that we can reasonable expect it to happen.--Chouser
--Chouser
"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." -LL
AOL has, of course, been actively lobbying Congress for open cable lines, presumably so that they could use them. When they bought Time Warner, they quit lobbying Congress, presumably because they now owned a cable network and didn't need. Today, they open up their lines. Very interesting. Are they being un-hypocritical or do they have ulterior motives. The article posits several hypotheses about how AOL doesn't think it will lose any customers because of the arrangement. I think it's more that they are going to define how open cable systems work, the way they want. This will ultimately work out to their benefit.
The articles keep referring to "consumer choice" when it comes to selecting an ISP. I thought consumers already had a choice. Are they referring to Time Warner cable customers or are they referring to AOL access? They never really make any of this clear.
What's this going to do to the bandwidth map? Is it opening up a whole lot of bandwidth to the Internet or is it opening up a specialized source of bandwidth, a sort of subset of the Internet that only a privileged few will get on? Right now, it's all very gimmicky. The maneuver is nice, but you know that AOL isn't doing this to be nice. I don't think it's an anti-trust thing, either. AOL smells some money somewhere and they must be hot on the scent.
damn it, i submitted this hours and hours ago (with better links) :)
:)
other links:
CNNFn
yahoo
This is all very interesting, in lieu of the FCC's recent ruling that cable providers do NOT have to do this. Perhaps AOL/TimeWarner isn't as bad as we thought, perhaps not
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
Of course AOL has ulterior motives. They think this will help them make money. That's the only reason they're doing it.
I expected AOL to open TW's cable lines, and I'll explain why. My numbers may be off, but I think they're close enough that you'll get the idea.
AT&T and @Home have about 75% of the cable ISP market. RoadRunner has about 25%. AOL figures that if they open their cable lines, they'll lose about 50% of their customers to other ISPs (because they have the strongest brand, and they can offer the best pricing). Of course, they're still making money on those customers, just not as much. So they stand to lose somewhat less than 12.5% of the market. Where I think they gain is that they can force the FCC to open AT&T's lines, thereby gaining about half of AT&T's customers (brand is king), or about 37.5% of the market. How will this happen? First, AOL implementing an open cable system shows that it's possible, so AT&T's objection on those grounds is thrown out. Further, I think they're hoping that AT&T/@Home customers will start objecting to their exclusive arrangement ("My brother gets AOL, why can't I?"). Finally, if prices are lower, AOL can show that the customer is helped by opening the cable lines. That might be enough to force the FCC to step in...
Ob. Disclaimer: IANAB (I am not a businessman). The above could be complete hooey. But it makes sense to me...
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
As a shareholder in AOL, I'd tend to agree with the corporate analysis (did I really say that?) that opening the pipelines to non-AOL will still result in AOL gaining market share.
...
The fact is, most consumers are:
A. lazy
B. confused by all this computer stuff
C. lazy
D. don't like techy things
E. lazy
Additionally, opening the pipelines reduces legal costs for the FEC and SEC oversights of the merger, which is probably more of a big deal in terms of expense and effort. AOL wants to keep its dominant market share, and as MSFT reminds us, being distracted by fighting with the government makes for bad business and reduces the profit stream.
Plus, it's cool to be Open Source or Open Pipeline, anyway. You get to hang out with the Linux geeks and maybe get some of those IPO shares along the way
Will in Seattle
I don't think anyone else has mentioned this, buta Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is non-binding! It is quite literally a simple statement that this what they think they're going to do. Any party to the MOU can change their mind and the other parties don't have a legal leg to stand on. Wait for the "Definitive Agreement" - that's the part that has any legal weight. An MOU is just a way to generate press.
Even at that, Time Warner Cable's prior contracts nuke lots of this - Road Runner's deal with Time Warner is as exclusive ISP. Ditto AtHome with the cable companies they're carried on. Nothing will change until either Road Runner and @Home willingly back out of their deal or they expire.
-----
Klactovedestene!