Received: from eff.org by kragar.eff.org with SMTP id AA14565
 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <[email protected]>);
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: <[email protected]>
From: Jack Powers <[email protected]>
Subject: Cable vs. telcos
To: [email protected] (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    [email protected]  [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed here have the full concurrance of my employer (me).