Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway
From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: LEC Monopoly and Cable TV
Message-ID: 
Date: 9 Aug 89 19:38:29 GMT
Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA
Lines: 48
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 286, message 6 of 8

> In article , jackson@ttidca.tti.com
> (Dick Jackson) writes:
> > Is anyone else in this group interested in the *future* of the telephone
> > system?

Very much so, both professionally and as a consumer.

> > 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.

As witnessed by the increasing interest in video from all the phone
companies, I suspect they think they can make Big Money in video to the
home.  They are probably right.  I would like to see the LECs given the
Greene light (;-) to provide video to the home, with one caveat.  They should
be required to give equal access to other CATV and video providers on
a home-by-home basis.  I picture a plan similar to that for long distance
telephone where the user selects a primary video provider and might even
have access to other video providers through access codes.

This does several things.  First, it opens the doors to competition and
increases my choices as a consumer.  Don't like your towns current CATV
company -- scrap 'em and pick another.  This should make video providers
more sensitive to the need to provide high levels of service.  (Ever
wonder why your cable TV offices are closed nights and weekends?)

It also makes narrowcasting more attractive.  I can start a business
delivering special interest videos to left handed albinos and still make
money because I would have access to all the left handed albinos in the US.
Groups of similar minded people can get the sort of programming they want.
A parallel argument is that this type of system would free us from the
tyranny of democracy.  As long as their are multiple conduits, there is no
need to make them all attractive to the majority.

I say let the LECs provide content, as long as they provide comparable
transport for other content providers.

DISCLAIMER: These views are in no way representative of the official
company line, at least to my knowledge.  I'm not even sure they fairly
represent what I think.

--

-Bob Virzi                    | Innuendo ...
 rv01@gte.com                 |
 ...!harvard!bunny!rv01       | ... and out the other.