roundtable: one of the problems(State PUC's, digital cable, FWD:CITS)

roundtable: one of the problems[State PUC's, digital cable, FWD:CITS]

one of the problems[State PUC's, digital cable, FWD:CITS]

W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Wed, 31 May 95 09:26:28 EDT 

Message-Id: <9505311330.AA02010@a.cni.org>
Date:  Wed, 31 May 95 09:26:28 EDT
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>
Subject: one of the problems[State PUC's, digital cable, FWD:CITS]


Could someone with extensive PUC experience address the magnitude of
this expressed concern, thanks, Curt

Curtiss Priest
<bmslib@mitvma.mit.edu>

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:05:28 -0400
To: BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu
From: tlwright@convergence.com (Terry L. Wright)
Subject: one of the problems[State PUC's, digital cable, FWD:CITS]


W. Curtiss Priest:

I recently sent this to Speaker Gingrich...but thought I'd share it with 
you as this does seem to represent a real-world problem, and you seem to 
have tremendous credibility with what's happening today in this space.

Thanks
Terry

(headers etc. removed)

Honorable Speaker Ginrich:

I believe there may be a way to make major strides towards sound US NII
policy goals, create jobs, enhance the quality of education in the US, and
promote telecommunications competition for local network access all in the
same program.

The obstacle we face in moving forward with this plan is the majority of
state PUC offices.  My understanding of S.652 is that is would significantly
restrict all states' (and local governments') ability to legislate
telecommunications at thea state and local level (taking effect over a
specified time period).  While this may eventually be just what the country
needs, I'm afraid it may come too late.

The cable television industry has a broadband presence in about 70% or so of
American homes (and passes by 97%).  Technology has advanced such that this
broadband spectrum can now support very high-capacity (10 Mb/s) data
networking....the kind everyone needs to get on the Information
SuperHighway.  This kind of performance available to local communities would
enable great strides in many areas (e.g., education, work-at-home programs,
reduced traffic conjestion on our roads, better health care, and so on).
However, as it currently stands, the cable industry (in some 40 states) is
forbidden by state PUC regulations from receiving revenue for data services
delivered over their coaxial (entertainment) network.

I'd like to better understand the Federal government's role (i.e., via the
FCC) in cables' business climate, but I really think the problem lies in the
states with their PUCs.  Since each state has at least one RBOC (Baby Bell),
I suspect their lobbying power at the state level is what has kept the reins
on cable thus far.  This is also why I believe S.652 may not come about soon
enough.  The longer the reins are on cable with respect to data services
over coax, the longer the telcos have to develop technology that would
weaken cables bandwidth strength into the home.  But the best estimates I've
heard for any kind of fiber or broadband overbuild by telco wouldn't be
complete until 2015.

It would seem to be in a lot of groups' interest (see above) if cable could
somehow get in the NII game in the immediate future.  It seems the most
common scenario for cable companies around this issue is that the PUC allows
them to provide services to (state and county) government departments, and
non-profit entities like school systems, as a part of their franchising
arrangement.  This usually shows up in the form of an INET (institutional
network) provision in a cable company's local franchise contract.   While
this might be nice for schools as they benefit from this, it prevents this
same kind of high-performance service from being available to the public as
a commercial service.  The situation also significantly limits the value
such a service represents as it typically is confined to the state and
county government offices in scope of connectivity, and does not allow, for
example, the service to extend into the community (e.g. parent teacher
conferences, handicapped access to schools electronically, and so on).

The majority of PUC laws restrict the cable companies from expanding their
value to communities through provisioning of information and network access
services; they are prevented from using their coaxial broadband into homes
and businesses for data-related services.  This is likely why we see so many
mindless "info-mercials" cluttering up cable television...cable companies
are restricted from using their deployed bandwidth for non-entertainment
purposes.  (I would gladly pay a reasonable monthly fee for 10 Mb/s access
into the net...as would most other network users now constrained to what the
telcos can offer as far as local access.)

So the bottom line here seems to me as follows:

- everyone (including schools, government offices, corporations, hospitals,
etc.) wants higher performances access into the net
- cable companies, with the addition of existing technology, can provide
that   high-performance local access into the Internet and other networks
- state governments forbid cable companies from commercially marketing data
services over coaxial CATV networks (what could be their rationale for this?)
- S.652 obviously recognizes some of this scenario, but it may not happen
for   another year.

This appears to be an example of how a government rule, at least a state
government rule, is arbitrarily standing between the people they're supposed
to be serving, and what those people all seem to want.

Is there any possibility that something could be done via the FCC to free up
cable to delivery data over broadband coax in the near term?  Perhaps all
that is needed is for cable to be allowed to lease bandwidth to non-cable
(and non-telco...LEC, RBOC, or IXC) companies who would then provide the
services.  This would create opportunities for many small businesses, and
allow cable companies to use their bandwidth for something other than
mindless info-mercials. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.

Respectfully,
Terry Wright
CTO - Convergence Systems, Inc. (CSI)
443 Mendon Road
Pittsford, New York  14534  "Time keeps everything from happening
tlwright@convergence.com     at once".
Voice (716) 388-9054
FAX:  (404)-512-8052

See <http://www.convergence.com> for 10 Mb/s ON/OFF Ramp Info

[CNI Home Page]