roundtable: Re: Video Switches

roundtable: Re: Video Switches

Re: Video Switches

Michael Chui (mchui@cs.indiana.edu)
Thu, 10 Mar 1994 21:52:27 -0500 

Message-Id: <9403110252.AA13610@a.cni.org>
To: telecomreg@relay.adp.wisc.edu, roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: Video Switches 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Mar 1994 13:08:31 CST."
             <Pine.3.85.9403101341.B10227-0100000@essential> 
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 21:52:27 -0500
From: Michael Chui <mchui@cs.indiana.edu>

James Love <love@Essential.ORG> wrote:
>   The telephone industry (usta), wants companies who ask for access to 
>stake out their claims for "channels" on the system, when it is 
>constructed.

     As Mark Jamison pointed out, the notion of "channels" doesn't
seem to be compatible with a switched point-to-point network model.
I support your efforts to enable the creation of such a network, rather
than a system based on an extension of the one-to-many architecture
of current broadcast media.  I'm glad to see that the 5-year sunset 
and 75:25 provisions for non-discriminatory access were removed during 
markup.

>   People use the phrase video platform to indicate the new broadband 
>networks.  In fact, they will be used for data, voice and video.

     Certainly.  If some common carrier finds a way to deliver
10Mbits/s (the speed typically required for reasonable quality video)
to the door at an affordable price, people would want to use
that bit pipe for more than just watching some movies-on-demand.

     However, HR 3636 (as amended) only requires non-discriminatory
access to common carriers' video platforms by *video programmers*, not
other content providers.  In a certain sense, Markey-Fields isn't
forward-looking enough, by perpetuating the content-based distinction
of video vs. other media, instead of acknowledging that bits are bits.
In a world with a lower institutional coefficient of inertia, I'd be
tempted to try to fold the time requirements for video platform into
the Open Platform (which could include video) provisions, and eliminate
the video platform "channel capacity" language altogether.

     Basically, I'd like to see non-discriminatory access to these 
broadband networks for content providers, whether they are providing 
video, text, audio, or whatever.  Common carriers should provide 
two-way bit pipes, not one-way video pipes.

>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.

     Today is the 118th anniversary of the first telephone call.
How long until Americans can make flat-rate, content-neutral-rate
digital calls?  "Mr. Watson, look, listen, read, and come here."

Michael Chui
mchui@cs.indiana.edu

P.S. Thanks to everyone who pointed out that the marked-up version
of H.R. 3636 is available for FTP on bell.com.

[CNI Home Page]