From N-Caftori@neiu.edu Wed Oct 21 15:58:15 1998
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:29:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Netiva Caftori 
To: all cpsr listservs , cpsrmad@neiu.edu,
        cpsrmich@neiu.edu, cpsrmidw@neiu.edu, cpsrohio@neiu.edu,
        cpsrtwin@neiu.edu, cpsr-chapters@cpsr.org, cpsr-activists@cpsr.org
Subject: From Andy: High bandwidth (was Re: Finally my word...) (fwd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 08:11:50 -0400
From: Andy Oram 
To: Netiva Caftori ,
    all cpsr listservs , cpsrmad@neiu.edu,
    cpsrmich@neiu.edu, cpsrmidw@neiu.edu, cpsrohio@neiu.edu,
    cpsrtwin@neiu.edu, cpsr-chapters@cpsr.org
Subject: High bandwidth (was Re: Finally my word...)

I'd like to expand on the high-bandwidth working group, because it may not
be clear at first why CPSR should get involved with this or what the public
interest is.

Those who managed to get to Boston last weekend heard a very insightful and
persuasive explanation on this subject by Jeff Chester, who applied his
experience with older broadcast media (he's the director of Center for
Media Education) to digital media. I can't do as well here, but I'll make a
stab at it.

The question is first "Who controls?" and secondly "What will they do with
the medium?" The high-bandwidth media that everybody is salivating over may
not be like the Internet, which has maintained a large "anything goes"
component. Barriers to entry have been pretty low on the Internet. (Of
course, we can always use more people online and more education about how
to set up a Web page.) But there is no reason for major companies offering
high-bandwidth to want this diversity on the new media.

The cable companies offer Internet access, but they also have portals with
propriety content, and they are looking for ways to offer commercial
content supported by advertising. They may even institute our old bugaboo,
per-minute or per-byte pricing.

Telephone companies are competing with DSL, but are using their local
monopolies to make entry by other companies hard for various ways.  There
are many ways, subtle or overt, for cable companies and telephone companies
to shut off access to competitors and to low-budget content providers.

It's too early to tell what's going to happen or what it's effects will be
on access and content. But this early point is just the right one for us to
get involved and champion our traditional causes.

Taking off from "One Planet, One Net," I thought of calling the new group
"Broadband, broad participation."

The history of radio and TV is very interesting here, and those who join
the high bandwidth group should educate themselves in these areas. Get
involved with us!

Thanks for the summary, Netiva.

Andy



From ANamioka@ActiveVoice.com Wed Oct 21 15:58:22 1998
From: Aki Namioka 
To: "'Netiva Caftori'" ,
        all cpsr listservs ,
        cpsrmad@neiu.edu, cpsrmich@neiu.edu, cpsrmidw@neiu.edu,
        cpsrohio@neiu.edu, cpsrtwin@neiu.edu, cpsr-chapters@cpsr.org,
        cpsr-activists@cpsr.org
Subject: RE: From Andy: High bandwidth (was Re: Finally my word...) (fwd)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:43:23 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Andy - this was a great summary.  I just wanted to add two local examples
which may help others in similar situations.

TCI is the local cable provider in Seattle and we are the 2nd test area for
the @Home service (cable modem service).  Before they rolled the service out
I received a high-level architecture document for the @Home service and Andy
is exactly right.  It is essentially a "closed" network that has/will have
prioritary applications running on it that will take advantage of the high
bandwidth.  It has rolled out to 200 homes in Seattle.  Unfortunately, the
roll-out of this service in Seattle was one of the few pathetic concessions
we got from TCI in return for a 10 year refranchise agreement with the city.
If other cities are undergoing refranchise talks with TCI - you can try to
use this as a leverage point and I hope you do better than we did.

With respect to DSL - the Utilities Commission in Washington (WUTC) was not
prepared to allow the DSL service to be introduced based on concerns about
equitable access by all ISPs.  I am on the board of the Washington
Association of Internet Service Providers and we were able to negotiate a
roll-out schedule that was (in theory) supposed to support both US West ISP
service AND independent ISP service (MegaCentral) at the same time.  The
WUTC agreed to this plan and DSL is now available in Washington state.
Lesson number 2, US West couldn't support the demand for MegaCentral service
and the result is US West.com has a huge advantage over other ISPs.

These are both issues where other areas of the country can benefit from
prior information and learn from what happened here in Seattle and
Washington.

Andy has already written an excellent article about the DSL situation.  I am
sure @Home will share their architecture doc with you if you ask nicely.

BTW - both of these services do provide the promised bandwidth if you are
the only person on the block.   If everybody on your block signs up for the
service the performance seriously degrades - or so says an electrical
engineer friend of mine.

There is a lot of potential for action in this area - I am looking forward
to the formation of the Working Group.

- Aki