Subject: Cable Television and the National Public Network

From: Mitchell Kapor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:03:11 -0400

Following are my postings excerpted from a thread in the Well's EFF
conference.  Due to Well policy, I cannot supply other posters'
contributions.  My remakrs stand alone fairly well.

I begin by replying to an accusation that EFF has swallowed the telco line
on ISDN.

 EFF has not taken the telco "LINE" about anything, much less that
 they are the idea provider of telecommunications.  

 What we have said is that ISDN is tactically very interesting as a
 first step toward a national public network which is digital, open,
 widely available and affordable.

 That said (and you can refer to the numerous statements we have made
 on this subject), it must be added that cable offers some interesting
 possibilities.  It has a high bandwidth (hundreds of megabits per
 second) and already reaches 60% of homes, passing by over 90%.

 The biggest issue we see is that while the telephone system operates
 on a common carrier basis which requires the phone companies to
 accomodate all comers who wish to sujpply information on the network,
 the cable system operates under no such obligation.  In fact, there is
 an enormous vertical integration in cable already with the major cable
 systems such as TCI and Time-Warner owning major interests in cable
 channels like CNN, HBO, and others.  NBC was unable to mount a CNN
 competitor because TCI and others refused to carry it.

 In our vision of the national public net, it is crucial that everyone
 be allowed to participate, not only as an informationm consumers, but
 as a provider.  Common carriage is the way to enable this.

 Interestingly, there are some preliminary moves suggesting ways in
 which this might be accomplished.  One proposal, filed in the FCC
 hearing o video dialtone, suggests a "condominium" approach in which
 cable would install a fiber-coax hybrid system nationally and sell
 digital carrying capacity t other carriers (LEC's, long-distance carriers,
 etc.) who would then operate that portion on a common carriage basis.

 We are interested in exploring these options and discussions are underway.

---

 64kb is not the upper bound for transmission over the copper local loop.
 ADSL and HDSL both offer high bit-rates to the home.  ADSL provides full
 T-1 from the CO and some amount (9.6-64kb) back.  HDSL currently operates
 at 768Kb, but it is fully symmetrical.  You would need two pairs to get
 the full 1.544Mb.

 Both ADSL and HDSL are transmission protocols.  In all probability ther
 higher level layer of the stack will be adopted from ISDN, according to
 the folks at Bellcore we spoke to.  ISDN should not be thought of as
 simply providing a 64kb "B" channel, but as a protocol suite which can be
 extended to operate at higher speeds.  In fact, Primnary rate ISDN's
 bearer channel's operate at 1.544 Mb.  So ADSL or HDSL could be the
 means by which primary rate ISDN is made to run over a single copper
 pair.

 By focusing on ISDN, there is in fact a migration path to higher speeds,
 not a dead end.  Basic rate ISDN is being deployed now.  ADSL and HDSL
 are still under development and going into field trials.  It will be
 years before you could get it at home, and that assumes that the telcos
 will be of a mind to tariff it affordably.  We like HDSL because, as a
 symmetrical system, is will allow users to originate high quality video
 as well as to receive it.

 Meanwhile, it is likely that higher speeds and longer distances can be
 achieved over copper.  At a Broadband conference last week, an
 infrastructure planning manager at Ameritech told me he thinks it's
possible
 to deliver 3-6 megabits/second over the local loop using ATM protocols.
 Speculative, but enticing.  The RBOCs have not given much thought to high-
 speed transmission over coper until very recently.  We think they should
 pursue these prospects diligently.

 Various hybrid systems, comvining copper and fiber or copper and coax also
 seem worth investigating.  We are making a visit to the FCC this week and
 to Cable Labs at the end of the month.  This subject will be on the agenda
 both places.

 Meanwhile, EFF Cambridge is ordering ISDN lines for the office and at
 home of staff members.  It's available in Mass. and priced at 1.6 cents
 per minute.  We'll let you know how the experiments go.  Right now it's
 only available within individual central offices, so its utility is
 somewhat limited.  But it should enable users at home with Macintoshes
 to operate like they're on  a  Localtalk network to the office.

---

 The telcos have seen ISDN primarily as a voice service, whereas the
 immediate demand will be as a data service.  ISDN adapters are available
 today for PC's for the same cost as a high-speed modem - $300-$500. 
Prices
 will fall further as volume goes up.  Sun is widely rumored to be building
 in ISDN into every workstation.  It will just BE THERE.  Telecom market
 research firms may have some of their heads wdged in the same places as
some
 of the telcos.  Obvious ISDN applications exist now for LAN-extenders,
work
 at home, Internet at home, etc.  Enough to drive the first 100,000 users
in
 the U.S., to show there is real demand for the service.

 Video telephones will be a very big market for ISDN as consumer units
 offering good quality over 64kb (bot 56) come to market over the next two
 years and crash through the $1000 then $500 price points.

 Cable has interesting possibilities, but they are not here and now.  ISDN
is
 being deployed here and now.

 Coax cable cannot handle two way high quality video now.  Architectures
 to permit this are just being explored now.  It will take several years
 if not a decade to develop the standards, protocols, implementations, and
 peripheral equipment required.  We encourage this but think that's too
 long to waIt in the absence of an alternative.

 EFF  is  interested in a platform which is digital, has wide-spread
 availability, and which is affordable. Cable systems could play a key role
 here.  We're interested in exploring this with them.

 Cable reaches over 60% of households and passes by over 90%.  It meets the
 wide-spread availability criterion.

 Coax is very high-capacity, 1 gigabit over short distances.

 Hybrid fiber-coax systems, in which trunks are fiber to the pedestal, and
 existing coax to the home are being investigated heavily by cable
industry.
 This is good.

 The cable industry will use digital cable to deliver more pay-per-view and
 video on demand of movies and other entertainment.  This will pay for the
 investment required to upgrade (presumably).

 Cable itself is not under common carrier regime. This is a problem. Cable
 should consider creation of digital common carriage pipe within a pipe.
 Dick Leghorn's condominium scheme (proposed in his filing in the video
 dial-tone case) represents one approach in this direction.  We think it
 should be explored further.  In that approach other carriers like LEC's,
 IXC's own and operate common carriage service which runs through cable
 system.  There has to be sufficient overall capacity, and  new cable
systems
 have to be properly architected from the outset to support this.  Of
 particular concern is making sure it's fully interactive.  Existing cable
 has trouble with interactivity, as architected with tree and branch
 structure as a one way system.  It is not necessary that system be fully
 symmetrical, but it is necessary that the system allow for origination of
 high-quality video at any point, not just at the head-end.  The cost to
 originate high-quality video need not be as low as cost to receive, but
 still needs to be affordable.  This has to be defined.

 Finally, cable should be open to explore more creative relationships with
 telcos in the area of public infrastructure.  For instance, in the use of
 ISDN in the near-term coupled with one way digital cable.  One way digital
 cable can be done now without much if any enhancement of existing cable (I
 am told).  If coupled with ISDN (meaning the subscriber has to have an
ISDN
 line too) could be powerful next step.  What's key here is to incorporate
in
 the set-top converters the necessary electronics for both cable and ISDN
in
 this case.