Communications Distribution Rights

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: W. Curtiss Priest: "Curious comment about Job Displacement, CITS"
• Previous message: Matt York: "re: NII ownership concentration"

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:39:18 -0400
Message-Id: <v01520d02ac731d3746b7@[198.147.97.84]>
To: ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG
From: cnslmtx@leonardo.net (Allan Bradley)
Subject: Communications Distribution Rights


My name is Allan Bradley I am the Principal in a technology consulting firm
called ConsulMetrix, Inc. or CMI.  For the last two (2) years we have been
establishing an innovative firm dedicated to the modeling of advanced
information architectures.  Through this process we have also come up with
a unique intellectual property, namely NTPM or Network Transition Process
Methodology.  The following is our attempt to place the importance of the
focus of our services to city's, the state and the nation's economic and
sociological future.  It is our opinion that the next few years in
telecommunications will dictate the playing field in how information is
delivered given the way we work, function and prosper on municipal, state
and national community levels.

Background

Although communications today is a complex subject for the general public
to digest,  historical analogies do exist.  The most simplest manner in
which the explaination of  "information superhighway" (I dislike this term,
but for the sake of discussion) issues can be compared is with the railroad
industry of the nineteenth century.  As many stereotypes in this era have
shown, a few "land barons" generally knew the repercussion, values and
layout of routes as well as the distribution of the railroad infrastructure
aspects ahead of time and consequently created dynasties.  Unfortunately,
the occupational land owners, farmers and ranchers, etc.  at the time
previous to these railroad routes allocations  rarely capitalized on
distribution aspects and often failed to gain the potential return certain
railroad infrastructure "distribution rights" may have brought.

Communications Distribution Rights

With the advent of ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) technologies, the
connectionless (datagram) oriented data networks of the past are giving 
way to the "connection oriented" internetworks of the future.  Connection
oriented networks are required in order to deliver the predictable
bandwidth necessary for multi-media (voice, video, data images, etc.)
applications.  This seemingly innocuous difference in communications
transport technology (connectionless vs.  connection) is an epic event in
the potential effect in the way society may define or capitalize on it's
own information technology attributes and future return.   Fundamentally,
communications transport technology has transitioned from an access media
approach to a distribution media approach - a very key distinction.

I am not suggesting  a rhetorical debate on the "information superhighway"
or Internet commercial usage issues, this horse has  been well beaten,
however there is a very critical aspect that has been either intentionally
or unintentionally overlooked and that is the empowerment of individual
communities and enterprises to standardize thier own distribution values.
The Internet is the global community network, but what is being determined
for the perverbial community - the individual community network?

The issue is Communications Distribution Property rights.  Why there are no
objective working models of new technology infrastructure distribution
allocations?  When something as important as the way we will function as a
society is at stake, why aren't there any models?  We make cars, space
shuttles, stock portfolios - everything under the sun, all with models to
determine cause and effect.  Where are the information distribution models
cause and effect? The first problem is perception,  the general notion is
that communications infrastructure is an access medium that it is the
responsibility of the phone, vendors and cable companies to provide access
- this is the incomplete view, it is now also a distribution medium that
can be initiated by communities and privately financed.  Secondly, a false
conception is that standards/government bodies are generating the models of
vendor interconnectivity.  This is commonly true on the physical and lower
logical layers (with the exception of some control aspects) , however
end-to-end connectivity in a practical multimedia connection oriented
communications environment will have inherent vendor specific propriety and
will tend to lock clients into long term solutions approaches which is
causing delay in implementing multimedia community solutions along with
cost.  Thirdly,  phone companies, cable companies and vendors do not want
to relinquish control on distribution models, because now is a good time to
be the railroad or the "land baron" and not the farmer.

Benefits

Examples of the benefits of having a communication distribution model for
site specific buildings, community infrastructures as well as enterprise
specific infrastructures like education, healthcare, government etc. :

1. With a model client's can shop the best deal approach with vendor to
vendor apples-to-apples comparisons based on neutral and enterprise
specific values and assure open systems.

2. A communications distribution model will  allow accurate cost
allocations  so  clients may finance very expensive communications
technology as a monthly fee or as an outsource cost effectively. (This
could assist in spreading communication costs to deprived areas of the city
and society to allow access on the information superhighway that vendors,
cable companies or phone companies won't capitalize truly advanced
technologies to invest in).

3. Models will determine cause and effect prior to millions of dollars
being allocated as opposed to having personal individual technology biases
in determining critical long term aspects that affect the general tax
paying population. (Healthcare distribution automation, city infrastructure
automation.)

4. The common articulation of infrastructures for security, video, phone,
data, etc. - At this time most of all of these networks are being designed
individually wasting millions of dollars in retrofit. (Networking is always
in a state of flux or transition)

5. There are many instances of government waste in the range of millions
upon millions of dollars, because bureaucrats rely on vendors that inject
self interest controls to technology issues.  There also numerous  examples
of state, city and the nation technologies systems procured and by the time
they are utilized they are out of date, miss-allocated and close to
becoming antiquated.

6. Fairness in a de-regulated communications market is based on the
accurate allocation of infrastructure privatization and the models that
determine objective allocation.

Example Topics

1.  With deregulation with respect to the RBOCs most have invested hundreds
of millions of dollars in massive fiber optic infrastructures - arguably
with some investment of rate payer revenues.  What rights do ratepayers
have with regard to these infrastructures when all is deregulated and what
onus do the RBOCs have to their respective state and local governments with
regard to these infrastructures given a new emphasis on the long distance
and information services markets.

2. Many cities in the past few years have negotiated Right of Way contracts
with phone companies and bypass companies for reciprocal connectivity or a
reduction in communications fees.  How are these Right of Way agreements
benefiting the local communities when they may generate millions of dollars
for these communications companies? Especially with current city budget
dilemmas in education, healthcare and community services.

3. Many university campuses are allowing more outside tenant services for
students and corporate sponsorships.  While many are very positive in
nature, how does this affect the emphasis on objective education and campus
media distribution and what affect is it going to have in the academic
environment of the future.

4. What are the impacts of an AT&T, RBOCs and major institutions are going
have on the Internet.  What will be the balances of commercialization and
unfettered free thought as well as the affect to small and medium Internet
service providers and communications services companies.

5. Given the 500 channel television, what are the policies, regulations and
engineering aspects of communities and residences establishing their own
community broadcast or local internetwork.

The communications industry in the post WW II market was initiated on a
(PT&T /AT&T) government bureaucratic organizational model with heavy FCC
controls.  The break-up of AT&T and the regulatory aspects of the RBOCS in
the eighties focused mainly on telephony and rate payer relationships as
defined by various state commissions.   A result of industry deregulation
is that most of these state commissions will be redefined, probably, as a
part of the state executive offices.  It is the general position of our
companie's charter that deregulation is a good thing that should be
continually fostered for the benefit of new start-ups, small to medium
organizations that may not have the multi-billion dollar or lobbying
resources that major communications organizations have at their disposal.
Furthermore, it should a function of this or other forums to be a
"watchdog" with regard to a deregulated market , that no one commercial
organization or a coalition of commercial organizations imposes an unfair
market advantage and becomes a "defacto regulatory body" in monopolizing
advanced technology distribution standards.

It is also somewhat disconcerting that the U.S. Government has chosen sex
and violence as the symbolic topic with regard to recent legislation in
communications.  Although this is a very important topic, there are many -
many other aspects to HR -1555 that need to be examined and discussed by
industry knowledgeable individuals.

Summary

As an aware property owner may do a mineral right survey on their property
to assess its true value - so shall a similar requirement may be needed to
establish communications distribution property right values.  Since 1993
the State of California has established MPOE, (Minimum Point of Entry) to
give more control to the communications user and IRD (Implementation Rate
Design) to allow options in local phone exchange.  To the general public
the result is seemingly more confusion.  But the engendered power of the
user - the power of choice - is of great value if an appropriate and
objective reference is established and maintained.  This new power and
choice  can be squandered if there are no accurate and objective site
specific models to simplify this complex but critical standard of
reference.  Because once these rights are gone or are given away, it 
will be very costly to have them be returned, if at all.

To some organizations the subject of Communications Distribution Rights may
sound frightening as a reversal to regulatory issues of decades ago.
However, they do exist and they should exist for the benefit of everyone
including the mass media commercial communication industry.  They exist,
but unfortunately, they are not defined, not for the brave new world of
telecommunications and the information age.  Society must get involved to
define the higher standard - the intelligent communications user beyond
government symbolism and the commercial soundbyte.  I cannot think of more
purposeful use of this type of forum than to discuss and determine these
rights if only just to identify some of them and acknowlegde what should
discussed in the open and not in private backroom meetings.  If we don't
then somone else will - whoever that will be

ConsulMetrix, Inc.
6601 Center Drive West, Suite 500
Los Angeles, Ca 90045
1 800 863 8749


ConsulMetrix, Inc.
Setting the Standards in Technology Consulting



Allan Bradley
<cnslmtx@leonardo.net>

• Next message: W. Curtiss Priest: "Curious comment about Job Displacement, CITS"
• Previous message: Matt York: "re: NII ownership concentration"