From: terryk@encore.com (Terence M. Kelleher)
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:03:09 GMT
	<TERRYK.92Sep11104927@fenix.encore.com>
	<Sep.14.11.53.49.1992.6611@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
	<1992Sep14.164202.17529@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
	<Sep.15.11.24.24.1992.15538@gandalf.rutgers.edu>

In article <Sep.15.11.24.24.1992.15538@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:


   bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality) writes:

   I just realized that I missed a crucial point in your original message.

   >Terry writes:
   >>>correct analogy.  We already have multiple channels, owned and
   >>>operated by competing firms, sharing the cable.  We have a single
				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Where do competing cable services share the cable?  Do they share all
   the cable or just the trunk lines?  If this is true then we don't need
   to continue this discussion because this is what I am advocating.

HBO, CINEMAX, DISNEY, SHOWTIME are all competing firms that are
broadcast by local cable providers.  We still have only one local
provider, as is true with phone service.  Many long distance carriers
available, one local utility.

   >But you still have the same LOCAL phone company...just like we have a
   >LOCAL cable company who provides the line to the house...and acts as the
   >agent for dozens of "long distance" cable services (ESPN, HBO, ...)
   >which actually offer cable service.  I know my cable company doesn't
   >offer any substantial cable service itself (if you don't include the
   >public access channel.)

   Okay, this is where we differ.  You are saying that the Cable Company
   is like the Local Phone Company - in my area that would be TKR Cable
   and NJ Bell.

   And each channel that TKR Cable brings me is like each service that
   the Phone company brings me.  For example, call waiting = Showtime,
   tone block = HBO, etc.  You are also putting each long distance 
   option in that same category, right?

I consider the long distance carriers analagous to the package and
channel selections on the cable system.

   Okay.  That is not the analogy that I am presenting.  I am not
   referring to the local level of telephone service at all.  Imagine
   it this way:

[details deleteted because they had my head spinning]

The closer you look at an analogy, the worse it looks.  I see the
local cable company and the local phone company as analogies in that
you are dependent upon them for specific services, no matter what
other companies might be involved in added value dependent on those
basic services (the wires).  

   AT&T owns the wires that come into your house, but they are required to
   lease space to MCI and Sprint. 

AT&T does not own those wires. The Baby Bell's do.  

   The question is, can the wires that are in place now accomodate that much
   traffic?  Is there enough room?  A telecom professor of mine says no, but
   he could be wrong.


The answer there is no.  On most systems, they are close to the limits
(maybe 50 channels).  In many areas, stations were dropped from
service to make room for the Olympic TripleCast.  If they had free
bandwidth, I expect they would have used it (as they did where I live,
increasing from 39 to 42 stations).  There is certainly not room for a
second company with a full complement of services.

   -- 
   Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
   Publications Coordinator - User Services
   Rutgers University Computing Services
--

                                 +----------------+
Terence Kelleher              +--+-------------+  |
Encore Computer Corp.         |  | E N C O R E |  |
terryk@encore.com             |  +-------------+--+
607-687-2644                  +----------------+

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate