June 20, 2006 - Summarizing events of the last two days related to cable TV in Westfield NJ:

• Three representatives from Verizon (external affairs, counsel and franchise manager) spoke before the Town Council tonight, at an advertised municipal consent hearing in response to Verizon's application for a municipal franchise to offer cable TV in Westfield NJ.

• The NJ Senate on June 19, 2006 approved and sent to Governor Corzine the Cable Choice Act, which will pre-empt the afore-mentioned municipal franchise application by authorizing a single state-wide cable TV franchise application.

• Verizon will deploy their FiOS (Fiber Optic Services) product, replacing copper with fiber optic transmission to the home, and providing a box somewhat larger than the telephone connection box currently on the outside of most Westfield homes to connect the fiber to existing in-home wiring. Verizon will offer four phone lines, high-speed data and video "cable-like" services, which may require some additional in-house wiring such as the addition of CAT 5 or 6 network cable. Verizon's FiOS connection from the central office to the home uses "passive optical" transmission so that there are no active electronics along the right-of-way (streets), just at the central office at one end of the fiber, and at the customer's home at the other end. Verizon may need to dig in the street to replace old conduit, but promised to conform to Town policies for this.
• Verizon's intention is not to replace but compete with incumbent providers (e.g. Comcast). They quoted a 2005 FCC study that indicated 16% lower prices with two providers.
• Verizon will offer basic analog service, and 200-channel expanded service (including 60 or so digital music channels).
• The NJ Senate yesterday (June 19, 2006) passed the Cable Choice Act, authorizing a state-wide cable TV franchise arrangement. The Governor has 45 days to sign it.
• The Senate had already approved a bill on May 18, which the Assembly approved on May 22, but since this legislation includes a franchise tax component, and such budgetary bills are required to originate in the Assembly, the Senate needed to vote again, which it did on June 19, approving the Cable Choice Act.
• Assuming Governor Corzine signs the Cable Choice Act, Verizon must decide whether to continue to pursue 92 separate municipal franchise applications it has filed with towns in NJ, or focus on the state-wide franchise, which is comprised of two components: the Cable Choice Act awaiting the Governor's signature, and regulatory rule-making that is the responsibility of the Board of Public Utilities, Office of Cable Television, and will likely be negotiated between all parties (government, public and providers).
• The BPU OCT already has a major role in setting the terms of municipal cable TV franchise agreements, according to the decades-old process outlined in existing state law that specifies cable TV carriers first applying to a municipality, a local hearing, 30 days for local approval of a municipal consent ordinance, BPU OCT review of the ordinance for compliance with state and federal law, then return to the municipality for standard first and second readings, vote and granting of a municipal certificate of approval.
• Many towns have written to the BPU OCT questioning Verizon's qualifications in terms of technical and financial requirements for applicants. Verizon reported to Westfield that the BPU has responded that Verizon meets or exceeds statutory requirements for applicants.

back to top

June 16, 2006 - What Should We Expect of New Cable TV Franchise Agreements and the NJ State Cable Choice Act?

First, we might ask the question, how can laws and rules be written today to regulate the future of cable TV, when we barely can imagine what that future is? The scientific method would tell us to move slowly and iteratively, with constant testing along the way to reach a desirable regulatory outcome. Instead, the legislative process takes us immediately to a decisive conclusion, with the potential side effect of an unnaturally warped reality if there are regulatory impacts that were not anticipated. But then again, if laws aren't written, then an unstable business climate might impede progress.

So, dig we must, to assure that our elected leaders build the deepest and best foundation they can right now, to allow cable TV technology to evolve.

Questions that might be considered are:

• How robust is the system to withstand disasters or other emergencies, and can it provide Emergency Services?
• What is the provider's experience elsewhere utilizing the prescribed equipment, and providing the promised services?
• Will the system pricing include a la carte channels?
• Will there be a guarantee of no redlining, with a formal schedule for build-out?
• What are the system's infrastructure requirements, such as wires or fiber that is buried or on poles, where are these located, and what ancillary equipment will there be, at central facilities, en route or at customer premises?
• What will be the purpose of 3 1/2 % tax for municipalities and 1/2 % for State?
• What additional funds will the Town receive to defray cable TV-related expenses, and support PEG (public, educational, governmental) Access Channel operations, equipment and other costs?
• How will the switch be made between multiple origination points feeding the Town's Access Channel, i.e., between High School and Town Hall?
• Will we be able to view multiple Access Channels, such as those of neighboring communities?
• What policies and rules will be applied to Access Channels?
• Will religious services be provided live on TV for shut-ins?

Additionally regarding Verizon's application for a municipal franchise to offer cable TV in Westfield NJ:

• What are details of origination from FL and IL and Flemington NJ?
• What is in Appendix 11 of Verizon's application, indicated as confidential?
• If the proposed cable TV system is not an overbuild, why is what seems to be traditional cable TV technology overlaid on existing telecommunications fiber?
• Will we be able to see neighboring towns' PEG channels, including those provided now, and others that have been requested but not provided by the incumbent?
• Will Verizon provide equipment, facilities and/or funds for the Town's PEG channels?
• Where and how does fiber turn to coax at customer premises?
• What are initial / primary service areas?

back to top

June 9, 2006 - What Do We See When We Imagine The Future of TV, Cable or otherwise?

Before trying to anticipate the future of TV, we should note that over most of a century the broadcast industry has provided innumerable and significant benefits to society. But over-the-air and cable TV also have frustrated viewers and communities who have some unmet expectations. For instance, with so many channels on cable, many viewers still believe they aren't getting the programming and services they really want. Consider the familiar community access or PEG channels, which are wildly popular and well-funded in some communities, and languish in others.

One might fill a book comparing television's reality to its potential. I could probably add a chapter or two to such a book, based on several months working on early cable access programming in NYC, eight years as a video editor and engineer for public television station WNET-13 in NYC early in its history, and thereafter for more than two decades working for numerous independent studios and producers. I also served as the inaugural volunteer chair of Westfield NJ's Cable Television Advisory Board. More recently, I have worked as audio visual manager for a college with responsibilities including Web-based video teleconferencing, and I continue to pursue an MS in electrical engineering.

Throughout these experiences, I have been thrilled by the possibilities of leveraging far-sighted federal laws, specifically the Public Television Act of 1967 that gave us over-the-air spectrum for public television [ref], and the FCC's mandate in 1972, reinforced by later Telecommunications Acts, allocating cable TV spectrum for government, educational and public access channels. [ref] [ref] Over forty years, American society has seen many benefits from these telecommunications policies. But I also believe that today, public television and cable access channels haphazardly and inadequately serve the public interest, with the promises of these channels not fully realized.

If I might, let me explain by first interpreting the term "channel." For eighty years "channel" has designated the authoritative gatekeeper, facilitator and brand-owner of radio and television content. "Channels" brought organization to the airwaves, out of the chaos of the first radio transmissions. And "channels" and "networks" further allowed sharing of high-quality content, especially expensive talent, efficiently distributed across wide areas, so that the early days of radio and television would be commercially viable.

Over decades, the cost of producing high-quality media has plummeted, as is obvious to anyone who owns a camera. Content-making tools are cheap and ubiquitous. And now, distribution has the potential to be unfettered thanks to the Internet's unique combination of chaos and structure, along with PVR's, and video "on-demand." Might traditional "channels" and "networks" that once provided great economies now be a burdensome bottleneck, an obsolete concept? What should we expect from a next-generation cable TV system? And what should citizen-producer-viewers advocate for, exactly, in the regulatory arena?

Concern over "net equity" is one rallying point for many people on these matters. But the idea of disallowing tiers of service, in effect "dumbing down" telecommunications paths such as the Internet, may be misguided particularly in a society where technological "fast lanes" are everywhere, and ostensibly don't intrude on anyone's opportunity. Everywhere in our society, fairness dictates that we each pay as we (virtually) go. In particular, there is one offering by Internet ISP's, the high-priced Quality of Service option, that provides an essential fast lane for advanced services like video teleconferencing. Without such tiered service, video teleconferencing is nearly impossible. But, as QOS and other business models are touted by the private sector, what statement do our elected leaders need to make to protect public interest, education and democratic values as they struggle to update the regulatory environment?

We might consider broadly interpreting and redefining the legacy concept of gatekeeping "channels" instead to be "pathways," however engineered, linking consumers with all varieties of content providers. Regulators might simply guarantee that no producer nor consumer of educational or public interest content is "left behind" in the new telecommunications infrastructure. They might mandate a "basic tier" of connectivity so that there is universal access to a "safety net" of services. A list of such "safety net" services could be preliminarily specified, then revised regularly by an appointed regulatory commission that might include representatives from the particular state, municipalities, education and public interest groups.

The economic burden that inevitably would be created for telecommunications providers might be more acceptable if regulations included constraints on that bandwidth allocated and provided at no cost for every citizen, the so-called "basic tier" or "safety net" of services. This freely provided bandwidth might be apportioned as a percentage of total system bandwidth, and might further be prescribed as usable only for accessing public services. Since a telecommunications provider deserves to make a profit, the "basic tier" bandwidth should be unavailable to the consumer for surfing to any non-public-service source. The consumer would need to pay for some level of premium service to broaden his or her surfing options. The suggestion of a free basic tier of Internet connectivity, with paid higher tiers, draws on a fundamental tenet, that bandwidth is the currency of electronic communications. Actually using the term "bandwidth" might enhance the language of any regulation, for example insisting that there be an adequate amount of "bandwidth" to implement democratically equal opportunity of access to public services.

In summary, I believe that any regulation of the evolving telecommunications marketplace and its emerging products must advocate, as described above, both reasonably and firmly, to protect access, education and the public interest.

back to top

nearby.tv is my personal effort to find a Web-publishing niche, covering some areas that might be neglected or poorly served by the vast universe of media such as traditional journalism, film, TV, governmental and political exposition, marketing, blogs, search engines, etc.

Expert advice is everywhere, but the challenge for each of us is to find our way along traditional well-trodden paths of knowledge, and perhaps illuminate new paths that might alleviate society's and our own frustrations. I personally seek information to:

• Compare television appliances, cable TV service, channel guides, remotes, etc.
• Explain cell phone quality and coverage.
• Guide our use of the computer and operating system.
• Alleviate traffic congestion and improving safety.
• Assess the effectiveness and improve accountability of non-profits and taxpayer-supported public institutions.
• Account for utility charges.
• Prepare for the changeover of the public airwaves to digital television (2009).
• Access key information to guarantee the right to equal opportunity.
• Choose technologies and policies that are forward-thinking and benefit our society.

I believe that there is an unresolved need in these areas, and that there is a choice to "Await or Create" our future. The domain name nearby.tv is a metaphor for the relevance, or closeness to home, of the various styles of media that serve us. We might further differentiate traditional media's market-driven and big-business-process-driven preoccupation from the opportunities of an interactive and personalized Web. My goal is to emulate many other personal web pages I have seen, that offer well-chosen links that connect in the style of a supercomputer, intelligently tying together many voices as an ultimate detection and problem-solving tool.