Cableco's and ISP - VOX

[jma2@erinet.com (Jim Armstrong)]

  >> I attended the '95 Western Cable Expo in the Los Angeles area a few =
  >> months ago.  Most of the cable companies and modem makers there had no =
  >> idea what to do as an ISP.  They seem to be happier with simply =
  >> supplying the transport and connecting to an existing 1st tier ISP.
  >> 
  >
  
  Dory <leifer@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu wrote:
  >Connecting to multiple regional ISPs probably won't scale well for the larger
  >cable companies. 
  ??? Scale?  Current ISP's don't scale well into ISDN either but I don't
  understand what that has to do with size, since CATV connectivity appears to
  be a lot easier to actually implement than ISDN.
  
  An ISP (for current services,anyway) is just a Domain like anything else on
  the CATV Net.
  In fact the cable carriers don't even HAVE to install a DNS; they can
  mandate that any and all ISP's provide Public Directory service as a
  requisite of connection.
  
  >As has been mentioned, cable companies are not common
  >carriers. I'm expecting to see agreements between the majors with a few
  >ISPs coming out "winners". 
  True, a lot of "mom&pop" ISP's are gonna drop out but AOL and Compuserve
  would STILL have no more advantage over, say Netcom ( or my "all-you-can
  eat" ISP), than they do now.... The problem with these (old, national) guys
  is that,support of SIG and CHAT Rooms, the very thing that they use as
  differentiators, is also a short-coming - The only TRUE forums are on the
  Internet and all ISP's now provide access to those.
  
  The larger regional ISP's, the ones that are growing fastest are learning
  what it will take to compete .... and that is in managing their service.
  Once they are freed from worrying about modem selection and configuration
  (which they DONT do very well),
  they can provide process-intensive services (DNS, NEWS, MAIL, Web services)
  much cheaper than the fledgling cableco and certainly the telco.
  
  >It would not surprise me if these agreements included voice services sooner
  rather >than later. 
  Considering costs of start up of voice services, I'd agree -  but only
  "sooner"; -  when the cableco's learn how to do it, they're not gonna want
  to split up that lean but huge pie. 
  Hell, the only thing to master is local (intra-lata, and inter-cableco)
  switching and neighborhood capacity planning...  and I bet "Ameritech Inc"
  is just itching to sell Sonet services to my cable provider.
  Long distance was solved long ago.  
  And, hmm-m-m-m, suppose AT&T bought a stake in your parent and offered to
  "partner" with you.......
  But, hey! Isn't that already happening?
  
  >Small ISPs and RBOCs might find themselves positioned against a common
  >competitor.
  >
  >Dory
  
  Of course, I could be wrong!
  
  Jim A