<<March 25, 2006>>
Archived distributions can be retrieved at;
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?G28312E0C>
This archive includes a html version of this list distribution and its MS/WORD version with its filename as “month-date-year.doc.” You can also access all of its attachments, if any.
Bob Cacace <bcacace@corstar.com>
John M. Eger <jeger@mail.sdsu.edu>
Dear Bob:
(1) Many thanks for your very inspiring msg (ATTACHMENT I) in response to my following previous list distribution;
(03/19/06)-B John Eger's essay "Freeing Cities From Telco and Cable Monopolies"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1A123BDC
Electronic Global University System and Services
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E62612919
ATTACHMENT I
From: Bob Cacace <bcacace@corstar.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:22:29 -0500
To: <utsumi@columbia.edu>
Conversation: John Eger's essay
Subject: John Eger's essay
Dear Dr. Utsumi:
For about a year now, I have been considering a bold move that relates to cable franchising and municipalities. I refer to this as a bold move because it could possibly lead to protracted court battles, if a municipality were to adopt the strategy. And, therefore, it would be hard to find the right municipality to take on a battle such as this. However, upon reading, Dr. Eger’s essay, I am encouraged that noted telecommunications experts are searching for an answer to a problem and that I might have the answer.
In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and in both prior and subsequent interpretations of cable television/municipal rulemakings, there has been channel space set aside for government use, educational use, and public access use. These “channels” are, literally, space on the wire. To date, they have been used for the transmission of television programming produced by the local municipality, or the school district, or members of the public. Most of us are familiar with this type of programming. It may be the town council meeting, a school board meeting, or some local civic group that videotapes its session and the transmits the session to the public. In most local municipal franchises, this is generally referred to as “Public, Educational, or Government Access” and the acronym “PEG” is commonly used.
What is not well understood is that a cable operator’s broadband or high-speed cable modem service is really just another use of “space on the wire.” Cable modem service works by taking specific channel capacity on the cable system - capacity that might otherwise be used to transmit television signals - and sending data packets across that part of the wire that has been designated for cable modem services. However, it is the same wire. The process involves spectrum digitization and the installation of a cable modem transportation system in the operator’s headend; but, at the end of the day, it is use of the space on the wire.
My hypothesis is that a municipality has the right to use its space on the wire as it so pleases, as long as it does not violate the law or the municipal franchise. In my opinion, if a municipality were to use its space for its own cable modem data system, such use does not violate law or municipal franchise. In fact, it doesn’t even come close.
Most cable franchises that I have read - and I have read quite a few - are simply silent on this issue. Therefore, statutorily, there is nothing preventing this sort of use. Practically, a municipality will have to purchase the cable modem transportation system and cover all associated digitization costs. And, certainly from the point of view of their relationship with their cable provider, relations will be strained. However, once the step is taken, the municipality will have a broadband cable modem network that will be capable of speeds that can exceed 30 MB. And, this use of the system in this manner will not cost the municipality anywhere near the construction of a broadband system - wireless or wired.
There are various arguments that could be made by the cable operator that this particular use of the spectrum is not allowable by franchise. They will argue that the prescribed use of the spectrum is only for video. However, that is not what the laws - nor most franchises - say. They will also argue that this type of use will harm them financially. However, they certainly would have the right - and opportunity - to design a high speed product that would deliver enough value that they could compete with a down and dirty broadband system from a municipality. Perhaps, there might even be an approach that involves a free network for the municipality and the education institution, while providing subsidies for low-income residents and fully charging those who can afford it. I don’t have all of the answers…but I do have a lot of questions!
In short, this idea stems from the fact that a cable system has already allocated - by law - to municipalities, which gives those municipalities certain rights. Over the past weeks, as I have been reading Dr. Eger’s very insightful essays, I have been mulling these thoughts over in my mind. After reading this latest essay, I thought that it was time to communicate them. I would appreciate your socializing these thoughts as you see appropriate and would welcome your own personal thoughts.
Bob Cacace
List of Distribution
Bob Cacace
Corstar Broadband Solution Corp.
40 Saw Mill River Road
Hawthorne, NY 10532
bcacace@corstar.com
John M. Eger
Van Deerlin Chair of Communication and Public Policy
Executive Director, International Center for Communications
College of Professional Studies and Fine Arts
San Diego State University
5500 Campanile Drive, PFSA 160
San Diego, CA 92182-4522
619-594-6933
619-594-6910
Fax: 619-594-4488
jeger@mail.sdsu.edu
http://www.smartcommunities.org/
http://www.smartcommunities.org/guidebook.html
http://www.iicom.org/intermedia/july2001/eger.htm