dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (02/11/91)
In article <74348@bu.edu.bu.edu>, abvax!iccgcc.DNET!herrickd@ uunet.uu.net (Dan Herrick) writes: > Every community of any size in the United States now has a second > company with a switch for providing public phone service - the > non-wireline cellular phone provider. His cellular system includes a > network of cell transceivers connected together with copper wires and > optic fibers and radio/microwave connections. (They even buy some of > those connections from the wireline providers, I'm sure.) > What prevents a non-wireline cellular provider from starting to offer > POTS - Plain Old Telephone Service? There has to be one out there > with capacity to spare owned by a curmudgeon spoiling for a good > competitive fight. The wiring to the cell sites is a drop in the bucket compared to the wiring to every wired telephone in the community. For the cellular provider to wire the whole city would require a staggering investment. Most local telcos probably couldn't afford to do that if their existing cable plant were wiped out tomorrow and they had to rewire from scratch at today's prices. We can, of course, already use the local non-wireline cellular provider's switch for local calls today. Just replace your wired telephone set with a fixed-location cellular set. But the usage rate is generally not competitive with existing local telco rates. Also, the local cellular provider buys 'dial tone' in bulk from the local telco, so there is little real alternative in this approach. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/12/91)
In article <74411@bu.edu.bu.edu>, dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > In article <74348@bu.edu.bu.edu>, abvax!iccgcc.DNET!herrickd@ > uunet.uu.net (Dan Herrick) writes: > > Every community of any size in the United States now has a second > > company with a switch for providing public phone service - the > > non-wireline cellular phone provider.... > The wiring to the cell sites is a drop in the bucket compared to the > wiring to every wired telephone in the community. But the local cable company has wires going into a large proportion of the homes. Why not run broadband to the local cable box and then have something like the "transceiver" box I suggested for rural areas carrying dial-tone from there to the house? What's the capacity of broadband over coax for that sort of distance? There's no reason to wire pairs from every house to the CO... (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
herrickd@uunet.uu.net (Dan Herrick) (02/12/91)
In article <74411@bu.edu.bu.edu>, dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > In article <74348@bu.edu.bu.edu>, abvax!iccgcc.DNET!herrickd@ > uunet.uu.net (Dan Herrick) writes: >> Every community of any size in the United States now has a second >> company with a switch for providing public phone service - the >> non-wireline cellular phone provider. His cellular system includes a >> network of cell transceivers connected together with copper wires and >> optic fibers and radio/microwave connections. (They even buy some of >> those connections from the wireline providers, I'm sure.) >> What prevents a non-wireline cellular provider from starting to offer >> POTS - Plain Old Telephone Service? There has to be one out there >> with capacity to spare owned by a curmudgeon spoiling for a good >> competitive fight. > The wiring to the cell sites is a drop in the bucket compared to the > wiring to every wired telephone in the community. For the cellular > provider to wire the whole city would require a staggering investment. A new provider does not need wiring to every wired telephone in the community. He needs wiring from his existing network to the phones of anyone who is willing to pay his hookup fee and continuing charges. Start the way MCI did: Choose one place where there are enough phones to justify the cost of the physical plant and sell the connection. The PBX in this building has between 500 and 1000 phones on it. It would be a good candidate if it were within a mile of a node on the cellular provider's network. The phone customer in the building might like redundancy enough to move half his phone service to an alternate carrier. Such a contract would justify free installation of a couple miles of optical fiber and related electronics. > Most local telcos probably couldn't afford to do that if their > existing cable plant were wiped out tomorrow and they had to rewire > from scratch at today's prices. They wouldn't do it with copper pairs, as they did the first time. They would use some combination of optical fiber and the same coax the tv cable companies use. The tv cable companies found the wherewithall to wire from scratch quite recently. > We can, of course, already use the local non-wireline cellular > provider's switch for local calls today. Just replace your wired > telephone set with a fixed-location cellular set. What I was suggesting is that the service provider would find it profitable to make people want to do something equivalent to this. > But the usage rate is generally not competitive with existing > local telco rates. That's because there is enough value added and novelty in cellular (mobile) technology that hundreds of thousands of people gladly pay through the nose to use it. The proposal is to offer another service using the same physical plant and less value added for less money. > Also, the local cellular provider buys 'dial tone' in bulk from the > local telco, Is this always true? I believe there are other ways to get dial tone. In fact, doesn't he get dial tone from his own switch and route the call a) Directly to another cellular phone on his system b) Over a T1 to the LEC if it is a local call c) Over a T1 to some LD supplier if it is not local (or he can get the local connection more cheaply by connecting to the telco network on the other side of some imaginary line > so there is little real alternative in this approach. Fallacies in this assertion: 1) The cellular provider is much more important to the LEC than I am and can command more attention from their technical people. 2) The cellular provider buys enough dial tone that it is realistic for him to explore other suppliers than the LEC. 3) This "little real alternative" argument applies in exactly the same way to the A and B cellular channels - however some prefer to buy from the wireline carrier and some prefer to buy from the lottery winner, and postings here display fierce loyalties in both directions. The customers seem to perceive a very real alternative. The original telephone wiring started in disconnected islands that slowly grew and interconnected. The electric power utility started in areas where there were lots of potential customers and grew from there. The existing cellular phone system started where the population is most congested and spread from there. Do you remember when UPS had a small but growing list of cities they served? Competitive phone service will begin where there are lots of potential customers and the LEC is abusing his monopoly status. John Higdon has been scathing in his descriptions of the service provided by Pac*Bell (why does he put the * in there?). If their service is only half as bad as he says it is, they are creating a business opportunity for someone else to come in and provide good service for a reasonable price. And current technology removes any credibility that the "natural monopoly" arguments ever had. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) (02/16/91)
Re: alternatives to the local telco for dial tone, the cable TV companies are an alternative technically. The technical problems have been solved by First Pacific Networks, Sunnyvale, CA which sells equipment to run LANs, voice, and video all over normal cable TV style coax. You plug your phone, your TV, and your PC into the same box which plugs into the coax. I think I read where they are considering it for telephone services in Singapore where the regulatory problems are different than here in the U.S. I meet some of the their developers once when they were trying to decide if they needed real-time telco call service selection. I pointed out that for business users the tariffs are slanted so that you consolidate your use with one service to maximize your discounts and you don't switch services or carriers on a call-by-call basis. You lessen your overall discount switching on a call-by-call basis. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105