roundtable: Re: Video Switches (fwd)

roundtable: Re: Video Switches (fwd)

Re: Video Switches (fwd)

James Love (love@Essential.ORG)
Thu, 10 Mar 1994 14:12:45 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 14:12:45 -0500 (EST)
From: James Love <love@Essential.ORG>
Subject: Re: Video Switches (fwd)
To: roundtable@cni.org
Message-Id: <Pine.3.85.9403101445.E10227-0100000@essential>


On Wed, 9 Mar 1994, Michael Chui wrote:
>
> 	What language are they suggesting?  HR 3636 (pre-markup)
> prohibited common carriers from discriminating in favor of their
> video programming affiliates, and required them to make available
> "such capacity as is requested by unaffiliated video program
> providers."  Do the RBOC's want this section removed, or is their
> proposal compatible with this language?
   
   The telephone industry (usta), wants companies who ask for access 
to stake out their claims for "channels" on the system, when it is 
constructed.  If someone comes latter, they can talk about expanded 
access, but only ifthe system is build out, which is expensive.  The 
language that survived mark-up is build on the USTA proposal, but with 
some of the worst aspects of the USTA proposal removed, such as the 
requirements for contracts at the time of constructure.

> 	BTW, common carriers were not required to provide more than
> 75% of their capacity to unaffiliated content providers, and the
> requirement to provide carriage to unaffiliated content providers
> was to be expire in five years.  Both of these caveats don't fit with
> the model of a video common carrier.  Common carriers should provide
> carriage to unaffiliated content providers without regard to the
> proportion of capacity they use.  Further, common carriers should not
> be permitted deny other content providers carriage, now, or in five years.

   The five year sunset langauge was removed from the bill, after much 
lobbying effort by consumer groups and a few content industry groups 
(viacom, paramount and fox).  The 75:25 split was also removed, at the 
request of the telcos, who want the right to own or control more than 25 
percent of the capacity of the system.  They 75:25 provision was to set 
an upper limit on what the telcos could control, under any terms.  This 
is now gone.

> 	I view user interfaces as being a content issue, and hence,
> I don't think they should be regulated.  In particular, they are typically
> implemented in software, and regulation mandating a particular type of
> user interface would stifle innovation in this field.  Would Internet
> users have wanted Gopher to be the interface standard for retrieving
> information, if they'd known Mosaic would never have been built?
> Furthermore, the presentation structure (i.e. the UI) of information
> greatly affects the information's usability - preventing the development
> of user interfaces which match content structure would be a mistake.
> Some of my current research is in the area of human-computer interaction,
> and we certainly haven't invented the perfect user interface yet.  :-)

    You are missing the point.  The telcos want a closed interface, 
where they choose the interface.  We want competition at the hardware 
and software level for the interface.  The FCC has to require an open 
system, so the  carrier doesn't control this.  This is an important issue.

> 	On the issue of switching, HR 3636 (pre-markup) only required
> common carriers to make capacity available to unaffiliated programmers
> "upon reasonable notice."  I'm certainly in favor of making that
> "reasonable notice" as short as possible, which some kind of switching
> would allow.
> 	However, I think it's interesting to note that potentially
> three regulatory regimes for similar switched services could be created:
> Plain Ol' Telephone Service (POTS), switched digital (Open Platform),
> and Video Dialtone.  Given that video dialtone service would probably
> be delivered digitally, and that it perpetuates content distinctions
> in carrier regulation (gee, what if I wanted to push audio, data, or even
> mixed multimedia bits down the video pipeline while no one was watching
> TV?), I'm inclined to push for more emphasis on Open Platform deployment.
> Open Platform is defined as providing subscribers with sufficient
> network capability to access multimedia information services.  If
> one of the media included in "multimedia" is video, then Open Platform
> buys you everything video dialtone does, and it really is more like a
> dialtone (everyone can call everyone else, and you can put any content,
> including video, into a call).

   People use the phrase video platform to indicate the new broadband 
networks.  In fact, they will be used for data, voice and video.  But, 
the telephone companies now have compelete freedom over whether or not 
to provide switches of any type, and these need not be open to competitors, 
only the "channel" capacity.


  -  jamie

ps, full committee mark-up will be soon, maybe next week.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Love, Taxpayer Assets Project; internet:  love@essential.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
12 Church Road, Ardmore, PA 19003; v. 215/658-0880; f. 215/649-4066
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[CNI Home Page]