Cable modems in Lansing (fwd)

[Mark Szidik - MLC]

Think I should believe this?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:08:03 -0600
From: "Rawcliffe, John" <Rawcliffe.John@broadband.att.com>
To: 'Mark Szidik - MLC' <szidikm@mlc.lib.mi.us>
Subject: RE: Cable modems in Lansing

Mark,
It now looks like we will launch @Home in October.  It should be available
throughout the entire system at that time.

Regards,
John Rawcliffe
General Manager
AT&T Broadband
1401 East Miller Road
Lansing, MI 48911
(517) 394-1110


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Szidik - MLC [mailto:szidikm@mlc.lib.mi.us]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 4:27 PM
To: Rawcliffe, John
Subject: Cable modems in Lansing


John,

I talked to you a while ago about when cable modems would be available
in the city of Lansing.  Any news on when they will be available
(specifically in the Cedar/Greenlawn area)?

It looks like I can now get DSL service so I wanted to check with you to
see if cable modems will be available soon.


Thanks,
Mark Szidik


On Mon, 1 May 2000, Rawcliffe, John wrote:

> Mark,
> The problem is that we do not have a firm date as yet.  We are in the
> process of doing a lot a preparatory work.  We are tentatively shooting to
> get started by year end, but it will take quite a while to get the whole
> system activated.
> 
> Regards,
> John Rawcliffe
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Szidik - Michigan Library Consortium
> [mailto:szidikm@mlc.lib.mi.us]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 10:53 AM
> To: Rawcliffe, John
> Subject: RE: S667: the Michigan Internet Access Enhancement Act
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious,  When can I expect cable-modem Inernet access in the
> city of Lansing?  Every time I call customer service the date continues 
> to shift further and further into the future.  Very disappointing.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Mark Szidik
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Rawcliffe, John wrote:
> 
> > Jeff:
> > 
> > Thank you for your overview on the proposed forced access bill
introduced
> by
> > Sen. Dunaskiss. That bill would, for the first time, introduce
government
> > regulation into the provision of Internet services - an issue worthy of
> > serious consideration. Your email of April 13 was a generally
even-handed
> > dealing with the issues. I'd like to amplify, however, several points
you
> > made and suggest that this legislation is not really about enhancing
> access
> > to broadband Internet services, but about delaying the rollout of a key
> > portion of the broadband market.
> > 
> > First, you should know that this bill is being supported most heavily
> (i.e.,
> > with money and lobbying clout) in Michigan by SBC/Ameritech and GTE.
That
> > should tell you something.  Neither of these companies has covered
> > themselves in glory when it comes to rolling out broadband services to
> their
> > customers. Today, as far as I know, GTE has no DSL service in the state,
> and
> > SBC/Ameritech has little, although it continues to promise more. 
> > 
> > However, cable companies have taken the lead in rolling out broadband
> > service in Michigan. East Lansing was one of the first communities in
the
> > nation to enjoy this service. For many years, Voyager (an independent
ISP)
> > enjoyed an exclusive agreement with Horizon Cable Services to provide
> cable
> > Internet service to Horizon customers, mostly in mid-Michigan. We
estimate
> > that there are currently about 30,000 cable modem customers in Michigan-
> > hardly a number to support the fiction of a monopoly on Internet access.
> > 
> > The cost of rolling out this service has been high - in the hundreds of
> > millions of dollars, all born by cable companies with no guarantee of
any
> > return on investment. What started out as a gamble and a partnership
with
> an
> > Internet Service Provider, in our case, @Home, is now flourishing in the
> > marketplace. While we currently have a time-limited, exclusive contract
> with
> > @Home, this does not prohibit any Internet user from accessing any other
> > ISP. Furthermore, there is absolutely no effort by the cable modem
> provider,
> > or its ISP, to regulate access to content. In the competitive atmosphere
> > that characterizes broadband, with DSL, wireless, satellite providers
and
> > who knows what next, any such effort would be suicidal.
> > 
> > As the cable modem market grows, customers want more choices. So the
major
> > cable modem providers have already made commitments that, as soon as
their
> > exclusive contracts with their ISPs are up, they plan to have
contractual
> > arrangements with a variety of ISPs. 
> > 
> > Phone companies, of course, don't like cable modems, because they bypass
> > their lines, and allow people to enter the Internet without going
through
> a
> > phone system. So they make no profits on cable modem service.
> > 
> > That's why the phone companies have, as part of their business plans, an
> > interest in slowing down the deployment of cable modems. They know that
> any
> > government regulation of cable modems will mean more money spent on red
> tape
> > and less on providing the service to customers. That means fewer of
their
> > customers will switch to cable.
> > 
> > Bottom line: There is a growing and competitive market in broadband.
> Despite
> > the rhetoric of SBC/Ameritech and GTE, and the "Open Net" coalition they
> are
> > funding in Michigan, there is no cable monopoly. Cable companies have
> > already committed to increased access by other ISPs. There is no need to
> > strangle the only broadband connection that has actually been rolled out
> to
> > residential customers so early in its development.
> > 
> > 
> > John Rawcliffe
> > General Manager
> > AT&T Cable Services
> > 1401 East Miller Road
> > Lansing, MI 48911
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Ogden [mailto:jogden@merit.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 12:40 PM
> > To: mjts@merit.edu; execcom@merit.edu; netdirect@merit.edu
> > Subject: S667: the Michigan Internet Access Enhancement Act
> > 
> > 
> > There is another proposed law before the Michigan Senate that may be 
> > of interest. It is S667, the Internet Access Enhancement Act. It is 
> > about what is being called "Open Access". And, since the traditional 
> > telephone companies such as GTE and SBC/Ameritech are already 
> > required to provide unbundled access to their facilities by other 
> > laws or regulations, this debate is almost entirely about Open Access 
> > to the Internet access facilities operated by cable companies.
> > 
> > If passed, S667 would require wireline broadband internet access 
> > transport providers "shall provide any other requested internet 
> > service provider access to its broadband internet access transport 
> > services, unbundled from the provision of content, on rates, terms, 
> > and conditions that are at least as favorable as those on which it 
> > provides the access to itself, to its affiliate, or to any other 
> > person."
> > 
> > You can look at a copy of the proposed legislation by following this 
> > impossibly long URL:
> > 
> > http://www.michiganlegislature.org/isapi/nls_ax.dll/BillStatus?LegSess 
> > ion=1999-2000&DocType=SB&BillNum=0667
> > 
> > or since you know the bill number, you can go to a shorter URL and 
> > ask for the bill there:
> > 
> >     http://www.michiganlegislature.org
> > 
> > The entire bill is very short, probably less than two pages. The bill 
> > was introduced on June 17, 1999, by Senators DUNASKISS, HOFFMAN, 
> > GOSCHKA and DINGELL and referred to the Committee on Technology and 
> > Energy. The committee held a hearing on the bill on April 6, 2000. A 
> > summary of the hearing by the Michigan Opennet Coalition is included 
> > at the end of this message.
> > 
> > For more information on the Open Access debate, see:
> > 
> > The FCC has issued a number of statements that can be found at:
> > 
> >     http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/
> > 
> > The Opennet coalition Web site:
> > 
> >     http://www.opennetcoalition/
> > 
> > The Michigan section of the opennet coalition's Web site:
> >  
> >     http://www.opennetcoalition.net/local/MI/
> > 
> > The Michigan for Open Access Web site:
> > 
> >     http://www.stopatt.com/
> > 
> > The rest of this note represents my own views and not those of Merit 
> > and as usual I may or may not know what I am talking about.
> > 
> > Personally I am generally in favor of Open Access.
> > 
> > Depending on who you talk to Open Access is a fight between large 
> > corporations such as AOL and Ameritech on one side who are in favor 
> > of Open Access and the cable companies such as ATT/MediaOne on the 
> > other who are opposed to Open Access. Of course since AOL purchased 
> > Time-Warner the lines between the sides aren't so clear. Others see 
> > it as a flight between big companies one one side and consumers on 
> > the other.
> > 
> > The main argument in favor of Open Access is that you don't want to 
> > give so much control over price and content to companies that have 
> > monopolies. That there isn't much competition in the cable business 
> > today. That requiring Open Access will maintain competition for 
> > Internet access and content provision and that competition will in 
> > turn force lower prices and better services for everyone.
> >  
> > One argument against Open Access is that if it isn't applied 
> > uniformly areas (local communities, states) that adopt it may see 
> > cable companies choose to implement high speed Internet access over 
> > cable later than in communities that don't adopt it (feels sort of 
> > like economic blackmail which I don't like, but others claim that 
> > this is just the normal functioning of an open market were companies 
> > are free to make decisions about where to invest their resources).
> > 
> > The cable companies also say that open access isn't technically 
> > workable, but that is clearly wrong unless you assume that you have 
> > to do it exactly the same way for cable and for more traditional 
> > telecommunication services such as DSL. Others say that there is in 
> > fact lots of competition in the ISP business today and that more is 
> > coming as DSL and wireless services are introduced--that in making 
> > judgments about competition we shouldn't be looking at just Internet 
> > over cable, but that the larger set of Internet access services. 
> > There are also claims that local communities do not have the 
> > authority to require open access, that passing open access rules will 
> > drag local communities into long and expensive court cases or require 
> > them to implement major regulatory schemes to enforce open access or 
> > that the FCC is against Open Access.
> > 
> > The FCC has not adopted any open access regulations for cable 
> > operators and doesn't seem to want to do so. But the Chairman of the 
> > FCC has called on cable companies to do the right thing and provide 
> > open access without being forced to do so through regulation (see the 
> > statement below). The FCC wants to avoid regulating the Internet, but 
> > warns that they might have to change their mind if large corporations 
> > with monopoly power abuse that power.
> > 
> > I don't know that cable companies will be able to capture all 
> > Internet content provision if they aren't forced to provide open 
> > access, but it is certainly the case that they will have a leg up on 
> > potential competition. Your cable provider would almost certainly be 
> > your ISP even if you get your e-mail and other content from a portal 
> > run by another organization.  Would that be bad?  You have to make up 
> > your own mind.
> > 
> >    -Jeff
> > 
> > ----------
> > 
> > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1999/nrcb9017.html
> > 
> > Part of an FCC News Release from October 13, 1999 about the release 
> > of an FCC Cable Staff Report on the State of the Broadband Industry
> > 
> > The report outlined some preliminary findings about the broadband 
> > industry to date:
> > 
> >    --The broadband industry is in its infancy.
> >    --Cable modem deployment has spurred alternative broadband
> >      technologies,  like digital subscriber lines (DSL).
> >    --Regulation or threat of regulation ultimately slows deployment
> >      of  broadband.
> >    --Market forces will compel cable companies to negotiate access
> >      agreements with unaffiliated ISPs, preventing cable companies
> >      from keeping systems  closed and proprietary.
> >    --If market forces fail and cable becomes the dominant means
> >      of Internet access, regulation might then be necessary to
> >      promote competition.
> >    --Rapid nationwide broadband deployment depends on a national
> >      policy.
> > 
> > The report acknowledged the risks associated with a regulatory policy 
> > of forbearance. Risks exist, such as the threat of a cable monopoly 
> > of broadband, the creation of an irreversibly closed system and the 
> > threat of inconsistent local regulation. Notwithstanding these risks, 
> > the Cable Services Bureau concluded that the better course of action 
> > is regulatory restraint.  The Cable Bureau staff recommended that if 
> > the threat of a monopoly emerges, the Commission should move swiftly 
> > and consider regulatory options.
> > 
> > The full FCC report is available at:
> > 
> >     http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Reports/broadbandtoday.pdf
> > 
> > ----------
> > 
> > http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/Statements/2000/stwek016.html
> > 
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > February 29, 2000
> > 
> > Statement of FCC Chairman William E. Kennard on the Memorandum of 
> > Understanding Between America Online and Time Warner Regarding 
> > Non-Discriminatory Access for ISPs to its Cable Networks
> > 
> > In the Internet Age, consumers want choice and speed. Never before 
> > has the market shown more potential to meet these consumer needs. 
> > That is why today's commitment by America Online and Time Warner to 
> > open their broadband networks is a welcome development.
> > 
> > For some time now, I have encouraged the fast-moving broadband 
> > marketplace to find business solutions to consumer demand as an 
> > alternative to intervention by government. Today's announcement is a 
> > significant step in the right direction.
> > 
> > I commend America Online and Time Warner for their leadership. It is 
> > imperative that Time Warner and other cable companies continue to 
> > listen to their customers and foster a robust ISP market. I will keep 
> > a close watch to determine if we can continue to forbear from 
> > regulation in this area.
> > 
> > ----------
> > 
> > Part of a 8 November 1999 op-ed article by Deborah A. Lathen, Chief 
> > of the Cable Services Bureau, Federal Communications Commission:
> > 
> > As I see it, the crux of the debate centers on whether government 
> > should mandate access to the proprietary cable platform, or whether 
> > market forces will accomplish such an objective. Unequivocally, FCC 
> > Chairman William Kennard favors open systems, and we believe that a 
> > competitive market is the most effective driver of an open system. 
> > The cable industry has said consistently that it wants openness. 
> > This, of course, would mean that cable companies would build in open 
> > interfaces to accommodate multiple ISPs and OSPs as they build out 
> > their infrastructure. If not, the talk about openness is just 
> > rhetoric. We are cautiously optimistic that this approach can work, 
> > but if those conditions do not develop, we may have to step in to 
> > make sure that consumers get competitive Internet choices.
> > 
> > See http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/misc/spdal903.html for Ms. Lathen's 
> > entire speech.
> > 
> > ----------
> > 
> > From: "Melissa Purdy" <melissapurdy@wienerassociates.com>
> > To: [a long list of recipients including jogden@merit.edu]
> > Subject: Open Access issue heard before MI Senate Committee
> > Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:07:55 -0400
> > 
> > The Michigan Senate Committee on Technology and Energy held a hearing 
> > yesterday, April 5th, on Senate Bill 667, a bill that would create 
> > open access to cable lines for the purpose of providing high-speed 
> > Internet access.  This was an opportunity for people on both sides of 
> > the issue to provide information to the Committee that will have the 
> > opportunity to move this legislation forward.
> >  
> > The OpenNET Coalition was represented by three of our member ISPs, 
> > ARQ Internet Solutions, Big Net, and Eagle Net, as well as Rich Bond, 
> > co-director of the OpenNET Coalition.  Ed Shimizu of GTE also 
> > presented testimony in favor of open access.  Rich Bond gave a great 
> > overview of the open access issue and an update of events that have 
> > taken place over the past year.  Our ISPs all made compelling 
> > arguments in favor of open access and gave the committee great 
> > examples of how diverse ISPs are and how not having access to cable 
> > lines are hurting their businesses.
> >  
> > The Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association presented arguments 
> > against open access to the Committee.  It emphasized that they 
> > believe market forces will solve the issues surrounding open access 
> > and that there is no need for government to get involved.  Joining 
> > the association was a representative from the Dearborn Mayor's 
> > office.  He explained to the Committee why the City of Dearborn 
> > decided not to include open access as a requirement in their cable 
> > franchise transfer.  He emphasized the fear of the cable company 
> > delaying broadband deployment and his belief in the market place as 
> > the main reasons for not including open access in their franchise 
> > transfer.
> >  
> > Overall, the hearing went very well.  It was a great opportunity to 
> > provide the committee with valuable information on the issue of open 
> > access and show our support for the legislation.  No vote was 
> > scheduled on the bill, so this will have to take place at a later 
> > meeting.  It is very important that our members contact their 
> > legislators and urge them to support this legislation.  They need to 
> > be encouraged to take an interest in this legislation and they will 
> > do so, if they hear from their constituents.
> >  
> > If you need assistance in contacting your legislator, please feel 
> > free to contact me, or visit these web sites:
> > http://www.house.state.mi.us/locate.html
> > http://www.state.mi.us/senate/
> >  
> > We hope that you will continue your interest and involvement in this 
> > issue and our coalition.  If you would like further information 
> > please contact me.
> >  
> > Sincerely,
> > Melissa Purdy
> > Michigan OpenNET Coalition
> > 517-374-2703
> > 
> > 
>