Cable modems in Lansing - Update
Mark Szidik
szidikm@mlc.lib.mi.us
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 12:18:10 -0500 (EST)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:21:01 -0700
From: "Rawcliffe, John" <Rawcliffe.John@broadband.att.com>
To: 'Mark Szidik' <szidikm@mlc.lib.mi.us>
Subject: RE: Cable modems in Lansing
Mark,
We were scheduled to launch on October 3, and completed all the work
necessary on the system in preparation for the launch. Two weeks before our
launch date Ameritech advised us that they could not provide the high speed
circuits we need to connect to the regional @Home data center. These
circuits were ordered 150 days in advance of our launch. We are working
with Ameritech to get a service date, and investigating other options, but
at this point, I do not have a revised launch date.
Regards,
John Rawcliffe
General Manager
AT&T Broadband
1401 East Miller Road
Lansing, MI 48911
-- on the local system ---Original Message-----
From: Mark Szidik [mailto:szidikm@mlc.lib.mi.us]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:16 AM
To: Rawcliffe, John
Subject: RE: Cable modems in Lansing
John,
Any news on when the @Home service will be available in Lansing?
______________________________________________________________________
Mark Szidik
System Administrator Ph: 517.694.4242 x17 Fax: 517.694.9303
Michigan Library Consortium http://www.mlc.lib.mi.us
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Rawcliffe, John wrote:
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>