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
>
>