Received: from eff.org by kragar.eff.org with SMTP id AA14565
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <pub-infra-archiver@kragar.eff.org>);
 Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:53:45 -0400
Received: by eff.org id AA26080
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for pub-infra-exploder); Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:30:53 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:30:42 -0400
Message-Id: <199204141130.AA26059@eff.org>
From: Jack Powers <jackp@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Cable vs. telcos
To: pub-infra@eff.org (pub-infra mailing list)


Fellow pub-infra readers, I'd like to comment on Mitch's remarks
concerning "swallowing the telco line" about ISDN:
 
Mitch is right about cable companies not being common carriers, either
in fact or in spirit. Anyone who wants to "do data" on a CATV system
(and I have done it) will have deal with a few unpleasant realities:
 
      - Most cable systems are one way only (simplex). [This forced me to
        invent a hybrid that uses the phone in the reverse direction for
        all the cable systems in the region of interest.] True, the FCC
        encouraged cable companies to build "2-way capable" systems, and
        a few of them did. However, the fact is that about 95% of the US
        cable systems transmit in 1 direction only. The exceptions include
        numerous short 2-way hops built to comply with franchise agree-
        ments requiring links for cities, schools, etc.  "2-way capable"
        means only that the 1-way amplifiers can be replaced with (more
        expensive) 2-way units if desired.
 
      - Cable industry people are mostly unfamiliar with data transmission
and
        their first reaction to a proposal to "do data" is usually worry
        that it will interfere with the TV business that pays their wages.
 
      - Many cable systems are owned by big holding companies called "Multi-
        ple System Operators" (MSOs). If you want to interest your local
        system people in doing data, you may have to sell the concept to
        MSO management far away both geographically and organizationally.
 
      - Cable transmission technology is changing rapidly. While this offers
        the possibility of a bonanza of bandwidth at *some* point, many
        system operators are waiting for a shakeout in vendors and
technology.
 
      - A big wave of interest in Metropolitan Area Networks using CATV
        fizzled a few years ago- along with it went a very comprehensive
        design by Sytek called Metronet. Some cable people think that data
        had its chance and failed, forgetting how fast the technology and
        customer needs are changing.
 
      - Many cable systems have major hassles with their TV customers and
        franchising authorities about quality and value of service. They
        are not looking for new alligators in their swamp.
 
I don't want to be a wet blanket - I believe that cable has a great
potential
for interactive, high bandwidth data services. However, I think Mitch is
right in concluding that ISDN is the best way to get to a "Network Nation"
(Murray Turoff's term) in time.
 
I'm not a telco bigot, either.  Most telcos (read:  big bureaucracies
filled with conservative voice specialists) aren't smart enough to
deploy residential ISDN on their own, they need to be motivated.  There
has been talk of using the "carrot" of deregulation to force telcos to
build a massive local fiber network infrastructure.  I think it makes
much more sense to motivate them to deploy ubiquitous ISDN... NOW!
 
In a few years, the cable and telephone people will get together and wire
our homes for interactive, high bandwidth services. In the mean time, we
should leverage the existing twisted pair cable plant with technology that
is proven and standard. That's ISDN.
 
Jack Powers    jackp@well.sf.ca.us  jackp@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed here have the full concurrance of my employer (me).