Federal Communications Commission Record 6 FCC Red No

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Federal Communications Commission Record 6 FCC Red No FCC 90-4 12 Federal Communications Commission Record 6 FCC Red No. 2 signals is no longer valid. Thus, this Further Notice of Before the Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice) proposes alterna- Federal Communications Commission tive tests for effective competition. and seeks comment on Washington, D.C. 20554 specific aspects of the proposals for changing the effective competition standard and standards for rate• regulation. MM Docket No. 90-4 II. BACKGROUND - 2. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Ca- In the Matter of ble Act) set forth a national policy to ehcourage the growth and development of cable television services.2 To Reexamination of the Effective further this policy, Section 623 of the Cable Act permits. but does not require, local franchising authorities to regu- Competition Standard for the late basic service rates -only in those situations-where. the Regulation of Cable Television cable system is not subject to "effective competition.t' Basic Service Rates The Cable Act directed •the Commission to define the circumstances in which a cable system is not subject to effective competition and to establish standards for the FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING regulation of basic cable rates by local franchising authorities in such cases.4 Adopted: December 13, 1990; Released: December 31, 1990 3. Under existing Commission rules, promulgated in 1985 and amended in 1988, a cable system is deemed By the Commission: Commissioners Quello and subject to effective competition if at least three Duggan issuing separate statements. unduplicated broadcast television signals are available over the entire cable community.5 The existing standard counts a broadcast signal as available based on predicted TABLE OF CONTENTS Grade B coverage or "significantly viewed" status in the cable community.b The Commission also has established Paragraph procedural requirements for those franchising authorities that choose to regulate basic cable rates, although the INTRODUCTION 1 specific rate-setting methodology used to set the basic service rate is left to the local franchising authorities. BACKGROUND 2 4. Section 623 of the Cable Act also requires that the Commission periodically review its regulations, taking into account developments in technology.7 On January 5 DISCUSSION 11, 1990, the Commission initiated this proceeding to undertake such a review in light of changed circum- A. Effective competition 5 stances in the video marketplace since the three signal B. Standards for rate regulation 37 standard was adopted. The Notice sought comment on C. Implementation of the rules 46 whether the three signal standard remains valid, and, if D. Other Matters 54 not, what would constitute a more appropriate standard. It also requested comment on proposals to amend the regulation by local franchising 33 standards for rate CONCLUSION authorities in cable communities not subject to effective competition.8 ADMiNISTRATIVE MATTERS 56 Appendix A: Commenters III. DISCUSSION Appendix B: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Appendix C: Proposed Rules A. Effective Competition Appendix D: Recommended Cable Industry Customer 5. In the Notice, we indicated our belief that the three Service Standards signal standard may no longer be an appropriate measure of effective competition because changes in the cable in- dustry appeared -to have altered the nature of basic cable I. INTRODUCTION service.9 The fundamental change we observed was that mainly of 1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) that the basic service tier, which consisted opened this proceeding. the Commission indicated its be- retransmitted local broadcast television signals when we lief that changed circumstances in the video marketplace adopted the effective competition standard, now includes warranted reexamination of the "three signal standard" a full range of programming services, including distant for determining whether a cable system was subject to broadcast signals, cable networks, superstations and locally effective competition and thus exempt from local fran- originated programming, beyond local broadcast sta- chising authority rate regulation.1 The Notice sought com- tions.'0 Thus, while over-the-air broadcast signals once ment on a wide variety of options for a revised definition may have been a good substitute for basic cable service, of effective competition and rate regulation standards. The this maV not he the case today given the expanded basic resulting record leads us to believe that an effective com- tier offerings.t1 As further evidence of the possible need to petition. standard based on three over-the-air broadcast revise the definition of effective competition. we noted in 208 -- . 6 FCC Red No.2 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 90-412 the Notice that, under the existing standard, rates for basic senting franchising authorities attribute these rate in- cable service have increased while subscribership has also creases to a lack of competition.2° They also contend that jncrased, a result that might suggest that competitive basic cable rates have risen at a time when penetration alternatives to basic service are limited. Moreover, an rates continue to grow because there are no good sub- update of the staff study that was used in part to develop stitutes for cable service, which offers subscribers an array the three signal standard appeared to indicate that with of programming and services (i.e., local and distant broad- changes in viewing patterns the current standard is no cast stations, locally originated programming, satellite-de- longer appropriate for determining when a cable operator livered services and specialty channels) in one convenient is subject to effective competition. 12 package. 6. The Notice requested comment on whether the three 10. Analysis. We believe that our initial determination signal standard remains valid, or whether some alternate regarding the need to. redefine effective competition is standard would provide a more accurate determination of correct because the three over-the-air signal standard no effective competition. Commenters favoring a revised stan- longer provides a correct measure of effectivecompetition dard were asked to consider a number of alternatives to the full range of cable service. The evidence indicates incl,ding: that consumers subscribe to basic cable service for the large number and wide variety of programming services it (1) an increased complement of over-the-air signals; delivers directly to the home. Since 1985, the number of (2) the availability of a second competitive cable channels included in basic service has increased.2' Based system or alternative video delivery provider, such upon the FCC/GAO data, we also find that the most widely subscribed-to tier of service on average has ex- as multichannel, multipoint distribution systems panded to include significant amounts of programmin (MMDS),'3 satellite master antenna systems (SMATVs), direct broadcast satellite systems (DBS) beyond the retransmission of local broadcast signals.2 or home satellite dishes (HSD5); (3) a measure of Moreover, audience statistics indicate that nonbroadcast cable penetration; (4) the offering of cable services cable programming has attracted an increasing share of on a per-channel or unbundled basis; and (5) some the audience in cable homes. For example, during the 1985/1986 television season, basic cable programming at- combination of factors. tracted a 19 share of all day audience in cable homes. During the 1988/1989 season, the all day audience share 1. Three Signal Standard for basic cable programming rose to 28.23 7. çonts. There is a consensus among commenters, 11. Furthermore, an analysis of the services provided by including government parties and cable interests, that the cable television systems indicates that such services can be three signal standard is no longer a viable measure of divided into four general categories and that different effective competition because it does not reflect today's media, to varying degrees, provide competition for dif- video marlcetplace.'4 While the National Telecommunica- ferent components of cable service.24 First, because cable tions and Information Administration (NTIA) and cable can offer a high level of signal quality, it serves as an interests generally argue that the existing three signal "antenna service," delivering quality reception of standard has performed as intended,'5 they concede that retransmitted local broadcast signals. The availability of an lnreased number of signals are now needed to con- comparable off-air broadcast television service is a good stitute effective competition in today's marketplace. Re- substitute for cable's "antenna service" function. Second, jecting our belief Set forth in the Notice that basic cable cable offers "premium" programming, such as recent service has fundamentally changed over this period, they movies, usually without• commercial interruption. The arue that cable service remains a combination of local substantial penetration of YCRs and the ubiquity of tape broadcast signals, regional and distant signals and a variety rental stores provides a good substitute for commercial- of cable programming services. They observe that in 1985 free movie channels.25 Third, cable offers general interest the Commission considered comments that indicated that channels, such as USA Network and TurnerNetwork basic service consisted of a mixture of local over-the-air Television (TNT). Broadcast signals offer some degree of signals
Recommended publications
  • 2016 Ncta Intx May 16Th & 17Th
    A Center for Law, 2016 NCTA INTX Technology, and Entrepreneurship ACADEMIC WORKSHOP at the University Silicon of Colorado MAY 16TH & 17TH latirons WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Workshop Locations Yochai Benkler, Professor of Law, Harvard University Babette E. Boliek, Associate Professor, Pepperdine University School of Law Monday, May 16, 2016 Adam Candeub, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law Samberg Conference Center - MIT David Clark, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6th Floor, Dining Room 5 & 6 Stacey Dogan, Professor, Boston University School of Law MIT Chang Building (E52) Carolyn Gideon, Assistant Professor of International Communication and Technology 50 Memorial Drive Policy and Director of Hitachi Center for Technology and International Affairs, The Cambridge, MA 02139 Fletcher School, Tufts University Ray Gifford, Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons, University of Colorado Shane Greenstein, Professor, Harvard Business School Tuesday, May 17, 2016 Christiaan Hogendorn, Associate Professor of Economics, Wesleyan University Boston Convention and John B. Horrigan, Senior Researcher, Pew Research Center Expo Center Gus Hurwitz, Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska College of Law 415 Summer Street Roslyn Layton, PhD Fellow, Aalborg University Boston, MA 02210 William Lehr, Research Scientist/CSAIL, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Directions & Parking Daniel Lyons, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School Information John Mayo, Professor of Economics, Business and Public Policy, Georgetown University
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band ) ET Docket No. 18-295 ) Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band ) GN Docket No. 17-183 Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz ) OPPOSITION OF NCTA – THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION Rick Chessen Neal Goldberg Danielle J. Piñeres NCTA – The Internet & Television Association 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW – Suite 100 Washington, DC 20001-1431 (202) 222-2445 July 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 2 I. THE COMMISSION BASED ITS DECISION TO PERMIT UNLICENSED USE IN THE 6 GHZ BAND ON THOROUGH CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD AND SOUND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND ACCORDINGLY ADOPTED APPROPRIATE PROTECTION MEASURES ........................................ 4 A. The Commission Should Reject FWCC’s Claims that It Failed to Take Sufficient Action to Protect Incumbents Against Harmful Interference ..................... 5 B. FWCC Proposes Burdensome Measures to Address Its Harmful Interference Concerns that the Commission Already Considered and Properly Rejected and that Are neither Necessary nor in the Public Interest ................................................. 10 i. The Commission Correctly Decided Not to Codify an Unnecessary Activity Limit for LPI Devices ........................................................................... 11 ii. The Commission Considered and Declined to Mandate Testing Before
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Economic Potential of 10G NETWORKS
    TELECOM ADVISORY SERVICES Assessing the Economic Potential of 10G NETWORKS OCTOBER 2020 AUTHORS RAUL KATZ (Ph.D., Management Science and Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) is currently Director of Business Strategy Research at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information, and President of Telecom Advisory Services, LLC (URL: www.teleadvs.com). Before founding Telecom Advisory Services, he worked for twenty years at Booz Allen Hamilton, where he was the Head of the Telecommunications Practice in North and Latin America and member of its Leadership Team. MR. FERNANDO CALLORDA (BA, MA, Economics, Universidad de San Andres-Argentina) is a Project Manager at Telecom Advisory Services, LLC and Research Fellow in the National Network of Public Universities in Argentina. He is also a professor of Political Economy at UNLAM and has taught courses of finance in regulated industries. Telecom Advisory Services LLC (TAS) is an international consulting firm specialized in the development of business strategies and public policies for digital and telecommunications companies, governments, and international organizations. Its clients include leading companies in the digital and telecommunications sectors, as well as international organizations such as the International Telecommunications Union, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Economic Forum, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the GSMA Association, the CTIA, the NCTA, GigaEurope, the Wi-Fi Alliance, and the FTTH Council (Europe).
    [Show full text]
  • Declaratory Ruling
    Federal Communications Commission DA 21-78 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by ) WC Docket No. 17-84 Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment ) DECLARATORY RULING Adopted: January 19, 2020 Released: January 19, 2021 By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau I. INTRODUCTION 1. Closing the digital divide and delivering the benefits of broadband to all Americans remains the Commission’s top priority. The COVID-19 pandemic has served to highlight the essential nature of a robust communications infrastructure in promoting access to healthcare, employment, education opportunities, and social connectivity, including civic and religious institutions, as well as family and friends. As part of its efforts to close the digital divide and further broadband deployment, the Commission has undertaken a series of reforms of its pole attachment rules with the aim of making access to this critical infrastructure faster, easier, safer, more predictable, and more affordable.1 Most notably, in August 2018, the Commission adopted the 2018 Wireline Infrastructure Order, which eliminated barriers to broadband deployment by streamlining the process for attaching new communications facilities to utility poles and reducing associated costs.2 2. In July 2020, NCTA — The Internet & Television Association filed a Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling (NCTA Petition) seeking clarification of certain issues related to pole replacements.3 In particular, NCTA requested that the Commission clarify that in unserved areas, it is unjust and unreasonable for pole owners to shift all pole replacement costs to new attachers.4 We decline to act on NCTA’s Petition at this time.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERNET ACCESS VIA CABLE TV: HIGH SPEED ACCESS to the INFORMATION HIGHWAY Lynn Jones Digital Equipment Corporation
    INTERNET ACCESS VIA CABLE TV: HIGH SPEED ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY Lynn Jones Digital Equipment Corporation Abstract countries around the world. In early 1994, it was estimated that on the average, a new Internet access has become a feeding frenzy. computer was added to the Internet every 30 Dial-up access to the World Wide Web just seconds.ii The growth of the Internet contin­ isn't fast enough. Your subscribers know ues to be exponential. that cable TV can give them access to hyper­ text at the speed of a bullet train, and they The cable TV industry has the capability want it. Now what do you do? to provide subscribers with Internet access at speeds unmatched in price/performance by How do you separate the hype from the hy­ any other medium. Using the ubiquitous, ex­ pertext? For that matter, what is hypertext? isting Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) infrastructure This paper will answer these questions and in place in the US, Canada, and many coun­ more, providing a framework within which tries around the world today, the cable indus­ to plan and implement Internet access on try can give customers high speed access at a your system. It will give you a crash course much lower cost - a key criteria for Internet on the Internet and show how the informa­ users. tion highway is being created today with the Internet and cable TV. Rapid access to and provision of pic­ tures, sound, video, audio, and integrated text and graphics are all made possible by access­ INTRODUCTION ing Internet sites on the World Wide Web, using a Web browser program from a personal "Internet over cable TV will receive more computer connected to the Internet via cable general press (Information Superhighway) television.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of Use of the 5.850-5.925 Ghz Band ET Docket
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ET Docket No. 19-138 Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band COMMENTS OF NCTA – THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION Rick Chessen Paul Margie Neal Goldberg Jason Neal Danielle Piñeres HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP NCTA – THE INTERNET & 1919 M Street NW TELEVISION ASSOCIATION 8th Floor 25 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Suite 100 (202) 730-1300 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 222-2445 Counsel for NCTA June 2, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1 II. THE COMMISSION CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT OPENING THE 5.9 GHZ BAND TO UNLICENSED TECHNOLOGIES WILL IMPROVE CONSUMER BROADBAND. ............................ 2 A. The First Report and Order Found that 5.9 GHz Unlicensed Spectrum Will Facilitate Access to a 160-Megahertz Channel for Next-Generation Wi-Fi, Including Through Upgrades to Existing Equipment. ............................................ 2 B. Consumer Demand for Additional Wi-Fi Spectrum Continues to Grow as the Nation Responds to the Public Health Crisis. ......................................................... 4 III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADOPT RULES THAT PERMIT ROBUST OUTDOOR INVESTMENT AND DEPLOYMENT. ........................................................................................ 5 A. The Commission Should Adopt NTIA’s Proposed Exclusion Zones for 36 dBm EIRP Outdoor Unlicensed Operations. ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Cable Television Audio Is Accessible
    The Future of Cable Television Audio is Accessible A Technical Paper prepared for SCTE•ISBE by Mark Francisco Fellow Comcast Cable 1800 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)286-8959 [email protected] © 2020 SCTE•ISBE and NCTA. All rights reserved. 1 Table of Contents Title Page Number 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2. What we must do – Regulations for MVPDs and Broadcasters ......................................................... 3 3. Conventions in Cable Television Audio .............................................................................................. 4 3.1. Retransmission....................................................................................................................... 4 3.2. Conventions in Streaming Media Provider Audio .................................................................. 5 3.3. Conventions in Cable Television Broadcast Programming .................................................... 5 4. Where Do We Go From Here .............................................................................................................. 7 4.1. The United Nations Already Solved This Problem ................................................................. 7 4.2. Accessibility is About More Than Just Content Signaling ...................................................... 7 4.3. The Future of Over-the-Air Broadcasting ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet
    The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 02:49:54 UTC Contents Articles History of the Internet 1 Barry Appelman 26 Paul Baran 28 Vint Cerf 33 Danny Cohen (engineer) 41 David D. Clark 44 Steve Crocker 45 Donald Davies 47 Douglas Engelbart 49 Charles M. Herzfeld 56 Internet Engineering Task Force 58 Bob Kahn 61 Peter T. Kirstein 65 Leonard Kleinrock 66 John Klensin 70 J. C. R. Licklider 71 Jon Postel 77 Louis Pouzin 80 Lawrence Roberts (scientist) 81 John Romkey 84 Ivan Sutherland 85 Robert Taylor (computer scientist) 89 Ray Tomlinson 92 Oleg Vishnepolsky 94 Phil Zimmermann 96 References Article Sources and Contributors 99 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 102 Article Licenses License 103 History of the Internet 1 History of the Internet The history of the Internet began with the development of electronic computers in the 1950s. This began with point-to-point communication between mainframe computers and terminals, expanded to point-to-point connections between computers and then early research into packet switching. Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks. In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • General Information 1
    General Information 1 The college also operates a 562 acre farm which serves as a field GENERAL INFORMATION laboratory. The farm includes grain storage facilities, cattle growing and finishing facilities, and a completely diversified dry land and irrigated This is a Course Catalog for the Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture farming operation. (NCTA). This catalog will serve as a reference during your time at NCTA. We hope the information contained will provide answers to your questions about Accreditation NCTA. The Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture has been granted accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission. The American Vision Veterinary Medical Association accredits the Veterinary Technology The Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture will foster a student- program. In addition, the College is approved to offer courses and majors centered learning environment with a national reputation for producing for veterans benefits and training under the War Orphans Act. graduates who are in high demand by agriculture and related industries. The Higher Learning Commission Mission 30 North LaSalle St., Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60602-2504 The Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture is devoted to a statewide 800-621-7440 mission of preparing students for successful careers in agriculture, veterinary technology and related industries. The college provides open access to innovative technical education resulting in associate degrees, Location certificates and other credentials. The Nebraska College of Technical Agriculture is located in the community of Curtis with a population of approximately 800 people on Key Characteristics the gentle rolling plains of southwest Nebraska, in the northwest part of Frontier County. Curtis is located 8 miles east of Highway 83 between • Nationally recognized education at the associate degree level the cities of North Platte and McCook.
    [Show full text]
  • Cable Companies and Municipalities NATURAL SMART COMMUNITY PARTNERS TABLE of CONTENTS
    2020 Cable Companies and Municipalities NATURAL SMART COMMUNITY PARTNERS TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Executive Summary 4 Key Takeaways 5 Introduction 7 SECTION ONE “Smart Community” Overview 11 SECTION TWO What Cable Providers Bring to Smart Community Partnerships & Projects 14 SECTION THREE The Expanding Ecosystem of the Smart Community Sector 21 Conclusion & Recommendations Cover Photo by Alina Grubnyak on Unsplash Laptop Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash CABLE COMPANIES AND MUNICIPALITIES: NATURAL SMART COMMUNITY PARTNERS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In recent years, a growing ecosystem of organizations are acting as the catalysts for Smart Community projects. The Smart Community market has expanded beyond local governments to include: Hospitals Universities Utilities Real Estate Developers Like municipalities, these new actors in the Smart Community marketplace require solutions that can meet their evolving needs and value partners that can work collaboratively to deploy, leverage and support networks of connected devices. Research conducted by Connected Communities LLC supports a conclusion that cable companies are uniquely well-positioned to help a growing ecosystem of Smart Community partners advance their objectives. Cable companies possess both dense network infrastructure across large service areas and valuable experience deploying and managing wired and wireless networks designed to solve complex connectivity challenges. Smart Community projects involving cable companies, municipalities and other Smart Community partners are on-going in urban, suburban and rural areas across the county. From the lessons learned drawn from these projects, the following recommendations emerge for cable companies and the growing ecosystem of Smart Community partners: Recommendations for Organizations Pursuing Smart Community Projects: ― Do not lose sight of the fact that effective Smart Community projects require robust, reliable and secure connectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau ) Seeks Comment on Emergency Access to ) PS Docket No. 20-285 Wi-Fi Access Points and Spectrum for ) Unlicensed Devices Pursuant to Section 301 ) of Ray Baum’s Act of 2018 ) COMMENTS OF NCTA – THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION Rick Chessen Neal Goldberg Danielle J. Piñeres NCTA – The Internet & Television Association 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW – Suite 100 Washington, DC 20001-1431 (202) 222-2445 October 1, 2020 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1 I. CABLE BROADBAND OPERATORS REGULARLY OPEN THEIR WI-FI APS TO THE PUBLIC VOLUNTARILY IN EMERGENCIES ....................................... 3 II. WI-FI APS CANNOT BE USED FOR 911 SERVICES WHEN MOBILE NETWORKS ARE DOWN ................................................................................................ 5 A. Wi-Fi APs Cannot Route 911 Calls to PSAPs or Distinguish Between 911 Calls and Other Internet Traffic ....................................................................................... 5 B. Client Device Capabilities Hinder Streamlined Access to Wi-Fi Networks for 911 Calling .............................................................................................................. 7 C. Wi-Fi APs Are Not Capable of Delivering Location Information to PSAPs ......... 8 D. Other Challenges Also Would Impede 911 Calling Over Wi-Fi .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Cable and Mobile Convergence
    Cable and Mobile Convergence A Vision from the Cable Communities Around the World A Technical Paper prepared for SCTE•ISBE by Jennifer Andréoli-Fang, PhD John T. Chapman Distinguished Technologist CTO Cable Access, Cisco Fellow CableLabs Cisco [email protected] [email protected] Charter Communications Ahmed Bencheikh, Group Vice President Praveen Srivastava, Director Vikas Sarawat, Consulting Engineer Cisco Ian Campbell, CTO Mobility, Distinguished Engineer Mark Grayson, Distinguished Engineer Cox Communications Drew Davis, Executive Director Paul Blaser, Director Shaw Communications Damian Poltz, Senior Vice President Dave Morley, Director Telecom Eduardo Panciera, Chief Architect Argentina Vidéotron Philippe Perron, Director Sylvain Archambault, Director Eric Menu, Architect Géraldine Trouillard, Architect David Lagacé, Architect Vodafone Gavin Young, Head of Fixed Access Centre of Excellence Bruno Cornaglia, Distinguished Engineer, Fixed Access Sr Manager © 2020 SCTE•ISBE and NCTA. All rights reserved. 1 Table of Contents Title Page Number 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Four Stories of Convergence .............................................................................................................. 7 2.1. Business Convergence .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2. Infrastructure Convergence ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]