bad news for cable modems in Lansing

Mark Szidik - Michigan Library Consortium szidikm@mlc.lib.mi.us
Mon, 1 May 2000 11:59:40 -0400 (EDT)


This is from the general Mananger of ATT cable Lansing:

>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


With fuzzy talk like that, I figure it will never arrive.


Marcel is not the only person that likes to use this mailing list to
rant about things. :-)  So here is mine.

<begin rant>

I hope Voyager gets off their ass and gets DSL rolled out soon.  I
certainly dont trust SBC/Ameritech to do it, and MCI/Brooks is
completly clueless.   

For those of you who live in Lansing & East Lansing you may not know it
but there is an alternative to Ameritech for POTS service.  Brooks
(recently swallowed by the monolith that is MCI) is a CLEC (competitive
local exchange carrier) in Lansing.  I buy local POTS service from
Brooks, the price is quite a bit cheaper and the quality of service is
the same as the ILEC (incumbent local exchange carrier).  I originally
bought into Brooks because I hate monopolies (still happy with Brooks on
this point) and I thought that they would mover faster into non POTS
services.  I was wrong about the latter.  They dont even offer BRI ISDN
even thought it is available on their local switch.  I am now convinced
that Brooks doesnt have a clue about residential service.  With the MCI
buyout I think it will get even worse.  Brooks is a tiny drop in the
ocean of companies that are now MCI.

I firmly believe that there is tons of demand for >56Kb access to the
Internet.  I strongly believe that the first to market will control this
market long term.    

ATT's contract to provide cable service in Lansing is up sometime next
year.  Negociations for a new contract are starting soon.  I am going to
write a letter & contact the city council arguing that they should drop
ATT as the provider.  I also argue that any new provider (possibly the
BWL?) must contractually meet a deadline for providing cable-modem
service and enforce it with monetary penalties.

I believe that providing this service is vital to the long-term economic
welfare on Lansing.  All other things being equal, consider a new 
professional moving into the area, where are they going to live?  The
burbs with cable modem access, Or Lansing with only POTS?  The choice is
clear.

</rant>

Anybody else want to work with me on the letter?


______________________________________________________________________
Mark Szidik
System Administrator           Ph: 517.694.4242 x17  Fax: 517.694.9303 
Michigan Library Consortium    http://www.mlc.lib.mi.us

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 09:02:07 -0600 
From: "Rawcliffe, John" <Rawcliffe.John@broadband.att.com>
To: 'Mark Szidik - Michigan Library Consortium' <szidikm@mlc.lib.mi.us>
Subject: RE: S667: the Michigan Internet Access Enhancement Act

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
> 
>