bulick@comanche.uswest.com (Stephen Bulick) (03/03/91)
I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that
the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to
be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the
local exchange carrier business. As soon as I saw the headline ("Cable
TV in Phone Challenge -- F.C.C. Allows Test Of Local Networks In a
Number of Cities") I wondered whether this meant that telcos would now
be able to argue more effectively for an entry into the cable TV
business. In fact, the article mentions this possibility without
drawing any conclusions.
This seems like an issue for discussion in this forum. I'd like to
start the thread and see what discussion ensues -- there are a lot of
thoughtful, well-informed posters in this forum. I can't wait to hear
what Donald E. Kimberlin has to say about this, for example. I always
read his stuff with great interest.
Steve Bulick U S WEST Advanced Technologies bulick@uswest.comslr@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve L. Rhoades) (03/04/91)
In article <telecom11.175.2@eecs.nwu.edu> bulick@comanche.uswest.com (Stephen Bulick) writes: > I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that > the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to > be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the > local exchange carrier business. [...] The system is called PCS - Personal Communications Service. In a nutshell, here's how it works: In a service area, there are several small "cells" located atop existing telephone poles. The cell communicates back to a MTSO (probably at the cable compnay's headend) and places the call over a POTS line. The communication from the cell back to the MTSO is done over unused bandwidth on the existing cable system. (Usually in the T-Channel range of between 2 Mhz and 50 Mhz and possibly above 500 Mhz). A few conpanies were given permission by the FCC to test the system. One of the companies is Continental Cablevision. Here in California, they'll be testing it on their Fresno system within two years. (Why does Fresno always get the new toys first ?) I just read an in-depth article about the system but, of course, I can't find it when I need it :-). Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023
0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) (03/04/91)
In article <Digest v11, iss172>, Stephen Bulick <bulick@comanche. uswest.com> posts: > I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that > the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to > be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the > local exchange carrier business. ... I wondered whether this meant that > telcos would now be able to argue more effectively for an entry into > the cable TV business. > This seems like an issue for discussion in this forum. For my $0.02 worth, it's been a topic of discussion here for a while now. I expect the Baby Bells will howl, loud and long, but to little avail, blowing more of the $27 million they spend a year lobbying away in Washington. (Yes, it's been documented they spent $27 on their registered lobbyists in Washington.) The simple reason: Dating to the 1/1/84 execution of Ma Bell and before, it's been a stated policy of the FCC to break up the local telephone monopoly as well as the long distance one. Since then we've seen the FCC get deeper and deeper into regulatory business that once was the province of the state regulators, reducing the state roles as handmaidens of local Telcos more and more. Observers of the technology can now obviously see that the 1913 notion of a "natural monopoly" by reason of a huge capital need is no longer valid. Can anyone on here raise any other argument to maintain the "natural monopoly" other than the obsolete view of tons of copper plowed into the ground or radio too complex and unstable to deploy in the neighborhood? That's the gauntlet. Who can post a reason _why_ the Telcos should now be permitted to maintain a monopoly, in other than vague, undefined language? (Are we now supposed to be paying them for decades of loyal and constantly profitable business?) Make no mistake. I brook no favor for the cable TV people. We all know how they have proved themselves to be hacks of the business for decades. They've had the capability to step into competition with the Telco for years; now the Feds have handed them an opportunity on a silver platter. I rather expect the cable interests to look this gift horse all the way down to its gullet. Let's see if they can blow the opportunity in the process.
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (03/06/91)
I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it, but who has refuted the argument that the local telephone monopoly does indeed allow for rate averaging and holding down local rates? In eight years of telecom policy work, I never heard a convincing argument to the contrary ... and, in fact, energy regulation has proven precisely the opposite. Throughout California, the state with which I am most familiar, residential and commercial (small-business) customers are paying billions more in gas rates so that industrial customers can be cajoled away from "competitive options" (many of which they created, for just this purpose) with lower rates. Competition just means more costs for the "core customers" who can't get access to real alternatives. I don't see cable rushing to hook up the Aunt Minnies, or you, or me. Bob Jacobson
ndallen@eecs.nwu.edu (Nigel Allen) (03/08/91)
A brief update on what Canadian cable companies are doing. First, cable television has traditionally been more popular in Canada than in the U.S., mostly because Canadians want the option to receive U.S. channels. Canadian cable TV companies traditionally brought in U.S. tv channels by microwave, so that you would be able to see Maine TV stations on cable in Nova Scotia. Now, however, Cancom distributes Detroit TV stations by satellite to Canadian cable companies, and these Detroit signals have replaced the ones from Bangor, Main, or whatever. Rogers is one of Canada's largest cable companies. Its parent company also owns 40% of Unitel Communications Inc. (formerly CNCP Telecommunications). I think that Rogers' Network Services unit competes with Bell Canada for some private high-volume circuit business. A while ago, Bell Canada asked the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to require Rogers Network Services to file tariffs with the CRTC on the grounds that Rogers was carrying on business as a telecommunications carrier. I'm not sure what ever came of that. Videotron is a large Quebec cable operator and broadcaster, with interests in some cable systems in England as well. Its telecommunications arm (Videotron Telecom Ltee) has applied to the Quebec Telecommunications Board for recognition as a telecommunications common carrier. If you would like a copy of Videotron's annual report, write to: Public Relations Department Groupe Videotron Ltee 2000, rue Berri Montreal, Quebec, Canada Other Canadian cable companies probably have some interesting plans up their collective sleeves, but I haven't heard anything from them. One other interesting telecommunications common carrier is B.C. Rail, formerly the British Columbia Railway Company. It sells private line services in competition with B.C. Tel and Unitel. (Historically, of course, both Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific had telecommunications departments, which were eventually merged to form CNCP Telecommunications. CN also owned two telephone companies, Terra Nova Tel in rural Newfoundland and Northwestel in the Yukon, the western Northwest Territories and northern B.C., until a few years ago, when Terra Nova Tel was sold to Newfoundland Tel and Northwestel was sold to BCE Inc., formerly Bell Canada Enterprises.) Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (03/08/91)
In article <telecom11.182.10@eecs.nwu.edu> cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: > I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it, but who has refuted the argument that > the local telephone monopoly does indeed allow for rate averaging and > holding down local rates? In eight years of telecom policy work, I > never heard a convincing argument to the contrary ... and, in fact, > energy regulation has proven precisely the opposite. Throughout > California, the state with which I am most familiar, residential and > commercial (small-business) customers are paying billions more in gas > rates so that industrial customers can be cajoled away from > "competitive options" (many of which they created, for just this > purpose) with lower rates. Competition just means more costs for the > "core customers" who can't get access to real alternatives. I don't > see cable rushing to hook up the Aunt Minnies, or you, or me. I am not refuting this point, but please be specific about rates *and* revenues. With sufficiently high volumes, it is perfectly possible for a large user with lower rates to generate a level of revenue that makes an industry/activity economically viable that wouldn't be with the lower volumes of residential/commercial usage even with their larger numbers. It's fair to call this a subsidy but also an economic necessity in some cases. [Moderator's Note: Rural areas will find all this to be a very moot discussion for years to come, I imagine. You're quite correct in calling it a subsidy -- but as you point out, that does not make it bad in all cases -- or maybe not good either -- but a realistic solution. PAT]
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/08/91)
Robert Jacobson <cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu> writes: > I don't see cable rushing to hook up the Aunt Minnies, or you, > or me. No, you will not. As a matter of fact, the City of San Jose had to bring considerable pressure to bear on the local cable company to wire significant sections of town. Why the resistance? There are large areas of San Jose that have underground utilities. After Gill Cable had wired up all the easy, pole to pole installations the company really dragged its feet about dealing with those people who wanted service in places where trenches needed to be dug. If you recall the early days of MCI and SPC (Sprint) and some of the later ones such as SBS, the OCCs were only really interested in 1) business customers and 2) heavily called (high profit) routes such as LA<-->San Francisco. Later on, these companies made the service somewhat more universal. But even today, OCCs contract with AT&T to reach really out of the way places. On SPC, you used to get a recording telling you that the (out of the way) place you were attempting to reach was "not on the SPRINT network". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !