Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: LEC Monopoly and Cable TV Message-ID:Date: 10 Aug 89 14:58:38 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Bell Communications Research Lines: 56 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 289, message 5 of 8 In article , jackson@ttidca.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes: > An example of the LEC's bid for more revenue is their request to be > allowed to operate cable TV, i.e. to deliver entertainment to the home. > In my, opinion to permit this at the present time would be ludicrous given > the operating companies non-clean record on cross subsidies and trampling > on smaller companies they perceive as competitors. > HOWEVER, and this is the point I would like to see discussed, it seems to > me fine to allow the local carriers to deliver cable TV as long as the > CATV companies are allowed to offer dial tone. Is this feasible? I > guess, for a start that the cable systems would have to be re-engineered, > probably with fiber, and there might not be enough money in the (phone) > business to make it a good investment. But it is going to take something > extraordinary to get fiber into homes, since telephone service alone can't > justify it. > > Dick Jackson > > [Moderator's Note: I am not quite clear on your use of the abbreviation > 'LEC'. Would you explain the abbreviation, please? But to provide one opinion > to your question, I think the telcos should stay in the phone business > and out of the cable TV business. Let's see what others here think. PT] LEC == Local Exchange Carrier. A.k.a. Exchange Carrier. Encompasses Bell Operating Companies and "Non-Bell Operating Companies" (a terribly biased term...). Bells+Independents. The guys who provide intra-LATA service. My opinion -- the LECs are common carriers. They move information from one place to another for anyone who desires, at a common price. If a LEC can figure out a way to provide video distribution as a common carrier -- and make money at it -- more power to 'em, let 'em in. Realize, of course, that common carriage means that the LEC charges the same price to NBC and to Joe's Video for carrying an hour of programming -- regardless of the demand for NBC versus the demand for Joe's Video. It could be run as pay-per-view -- the customer pays ten cents an hour for NBC and one cent an hour for Joe's video -- but in a market used to grazing through 35 channels, don't count on much market penetration pricing this way. Beyond the questions of "should telcos be allowed to offer cable" and "should cable companies be allowed to offer dialtone", keep in mind that there is also the fact that in the majority of this country, both telcos and cable companies have exclusive franchises (read: regulated monopolies) in either the municipality or state. Before you can start talking about cable/telco competition, you have to talk about competition period... Disclaimer: Bellcore doesn't pay me to have opinions about cable TV. -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."