August 29, 2008
TECHNOS QUARTERLY Spring 1993 Vol. 2 No. 1
And They're Off! The Race to Fiber Optics
By Joan E. Lewis
The
hot topic in communications these days is fiber-optic networks. The potential
for this communications technology—one that uses light to transport sound,
images, and data along fibers of glass—seems limited only by imagination,
but the cost to implement fiber optics nationwide is enormous. Even more sizeable
is the amount of money that will eventually come to the providers of this
service. This big-bucks potential is the carrot at the end of the stick toward
which telephone and cable companies and others are scrambling. Education seems
destined to play the role of major catalyst in fiber-optic network implementation
and expansion, but there are many questions—including who owns and who
pays—that need to be resolved along the way.
As the Paradigm Shifts
In communications technology, the market process moves quickly. We marvel at each technological advance only briefly before we ask for more. If we have broadcast, we want interaction. If we have data, we want voice. If we have voice, we want images—in color, no less.
If our insatiable hunger spurs the development of communications technology, it in turn inspires us to rethink our business and education paradigms. The current surge to incorporate distance learning in instructional programs of all levels is a prime example. The concept of distance learning—teachers and learners in different locations—isn't new. Satellite and cable broadcasts have a firm place in education, and interaction by computer data carried over existing telephone lines continues to grow. But recent technology, which enables teachers and learners in different locations to interact as if they were in the same room, has changed the concept of distance learning and is making it a pivotal tool in education reform.
The rationale is straightforward: If technology enables us to join learners (regardless of location) to highly competent instructors and information sources (regardless of location) in an interactive teaching-learning environment, we can apply that technology to make high-quality education accessible to all.
As distance learning programs pop up across the country, education associations are offering guidelines that will affect the expansion of certain technologies. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) issued a position statement in July 1990 that establishes criteria for applying distance learning. A key NSTA criterion is the capability for interaction between instructors and learners.
The National Education Association (NEA) also regards interactivity as key and lists it as one of the five standards “that should guide the development of a telecommunications infrastructure for the twenty-first century.” These standards, which also include interconnectivity, decentralization, broadband capacity, and equity, appear in the NEA's 1992 testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. If we view NEA's standards as job qualifications for technology candidates, fiber-optic networks hold the winning resume because fiber can best meet all of these requirements.
Is Fiber Really Better?
The quality of a communications transmission system is often measured by the product of two quantities: The distance the signal can go without an amplifier or a repeater to keep the signal strong, and the amount of information-carrying capability, or bandwidth, the signal has. Systems labeled “broadband” have the capacity to carry thousands of telephone calls or television programs simultaneously.
There are three major ground communication transmission vehicles: pairs of twisted copper wires, used by the telephone companies (telcos); coaxial cable, used by the cable television (CATV) companies; and optical fibers now being implemented by both. Of the three, copper offers the fewest advantages, while optical fibers far outshine the other two.
In addition to having almost unlimited bandwidth, optical fibers transmit more information quickly and with less need for amplifiers than either copper or coaxial. Fiber is not affected by lightning, power lines, motors, or generators. That means no static on the line. Optical fibers are lighter than copper wires and coaxial cable and therefore are easier for installers to handle. Fibers are smaller, so they take up less space, and the base product, glass, is one of the cheapest materials available. Finally, fiber provides top security because it is extremely difficult to tap. Terry Forkner, manager of the Systems Integration Group for Indiana Bell, says, “It just doesn't make sense to deploy anything other than fiber.”
The rest of the world seems to agree. Other countries, such as Germany and Poland, are laying fiber, and Japan is updating its infrastructure with fiber. In this Age of Information, no one wants to be left behind.
How does it work? The fibers of fiber-optic technology start as individual rods about the length of a yardstick with a diameter a little larger than a quarter. The rods are constructed of many layers of glass. The core of the rod—highly transparent, nearly flawless glass—is surrounded by 50 to 75 layers of different types of glass. These outer layers are called the cladding.
Technicians heat the rod to soften it enough to enable them to draw the tip, rather like a taffy pull, into a thin glass fiber. These drawn fibers, which are surprisingly flexible and sturdy, are usually coated in protective plastic and wound in spools as they are drawn. The individual fibers—thinner than a cat's whisker and each capable of handling thousands of two-way voice, video, and data messages simultaneously—are bundled in various ways to form fiber-optic cables. The highly transparent glass core of the optical fibers is the highway on which voice, video, and data zoom at the speed of light from sender to receiver. The cladding keeps the light within the core because its layers reflect light inward, rather like a mirror.
Two basic equipment requirements are necessary to send and receive messages through optical fibers: Access to a semiconductor, a laser or a light-emitting diode, to transform electronic signals from a phone or computer, for example, into pulses of light; and a light detector/decoder to convert light pulses back into electronic signals at the receiving end. The other send/receive equipment needed depends upon the types of messages. If the messages are just voice or data, phones and computer modems are all that is needed. If live image messages are desired, television cameras, microphones, video switching equipment, and viewing monitors are needed.
What's the Holdup?
Miles and miles of fiber-optic cable are already in place, but much of it is not yet connected to consumers. What is holding up the final leg in fiber's implementation? Lack of funds? Technology problems? Politics?
Indiana Bell's Forkner replies. “I wish it were as simple as saying it's just a political issue, or just an economic issue, or just a technological issue—but it's all of those things at once.”
A major holdup is the cost of technology. The base technology is available now, but cost-effective refinements are still needed. Affordable power is one problem. To send light pulses through fiber networks, each send/receive unit must have a power source. The source of choice is lasers, and they are still very costly.
Forkner agrees that power is one part of the cost problem, but points out that there are larger issues. “There is an incredibly large capital investment required to run fiber optics all the way to homes and schools. And then there are all kinds of issues, such as who buys and who maintains the electronic equipment needed by each house or school or library.”
Regulations and restrictions also contribute to the fiber-optic deployment holdup. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations have long prohibited telcos from providing video and other information services to customers. According to Gary Watts, senior director of the NEA's National Center for Innovation, “The telcos have been laying fiber for years—their trunk lines are down—but they are not connected to homes and schools, and the telcos are not going to put out the expense to do that unless they can sell something besides voice mail. At this point, it is still not cost-effective for [telcos] to connect us.”
But times are changing. In July 1992, the FCC ruled that regional telecommunications companies could offer, without obtaining a CATV franchise, “video dial tone” services to transmit video signals over telephone lines for video programmers. Within six months of the FCC announcement, Bell Atlantic Corporation declared that it would team with a small New Jersey company to provide 60 channels of television over a combination of optical fibers and coaxial cables that will carry both telephone and video services to homes in Dover township, located about 50 miles west of New York City. By year's end, Bell Atlantic had set up two more alliances to deliver video signals.
Restrictions remain for telcos, but their prospects of eventually providing a full range of communications services are looking brighter, and they are grateful for the changes. Cable TV companies, on the other hand, are not applauding.
CATV-Telco Turf Wars
Telcos are invading CATV turf, but the cable television companies are also moving into telco markets. Early in 1992, TCI, this country's largest CATV operator, bought 49 percent of Teleport Communications Group, Inc., a move that gave TCI the capability to provide data transmission services to major corporations and placed TCI in direct competition with local phone companies. It is no secret that CATVs and telcos want to enter each other's markets. Both are busily laying down fiber-optic networks that will enable simultaneous video, voice, and data transmission.
Telcos have the advantage of superior switching capabilities, which provide communication between virtually any two locations. And for now, the telcos seem to be leading in the amount of fiber they have in place. But telcos, like everyone else, are still blocked by the problem of how to make the costly connection from the fiber-optic main cable to individual homes, businesses, and institutions on a mass scale. On this point, CATVs may have the advantage.
Telcos, of course, already have copper wires in most households and buildings, but copper simply cannot handle the full range of services—nor can it deliver at the speed—that the fiber networks can. Connecting copper to fiber is like guiding six lanes of speeding traffic through a one-lane exit. Things slow down, a lot.
CATVs also have wires in many homes and schools. They don't have as many wires as the telcos have, but CATVs claim about 60 out of every 100 households. CATVs' advantage is that they have wired with coaxial cable. Coaxial is a good conduit for optical fiber because for distances under 300 feet, coaxial cable—unlike copper—is a “broadband pipe.” This means that coaxial cable can carry huge amounts of voice, video, or data very quickly.
Wires installed inside a home or building belong to that home or business. There is nothing to stop a school wired with coaxial cable, for example, from allowing a telco to connect its fiber-optic cable to the existing coaxial cable in the building. The school can then begin receiving telco-provided services on this hybrid network.
The Indianapolis Regional Economic/Academic Development (IREAD) distance learning network—implemented in fall 1992 and put together by Indiana Bell/Ameritech, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and the Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS)—is just one example of an operating fiber/coaxial hybrid system. To create this network—which links 90 locations in Indianapolis and is billed as “the world's largest fully interactive video fiber-optic network focused on education applications”—Indiana Bell laid a 600-mile-long fiber trunk line and connected it to existing coaxial cable in each IPS building. A fiber connection to the campus of Indiana University Bloomington, 45 miles south of Indianapolis, is also in place.
Perhaps telcos and CATVs will explore ways to cooperate. New alliances do seem to be part of the changes in telecommunications. But for now telcos and CATVs, along with other companies, are racing to lay down their own fiber networks. Sometimes several of these basically redundant networks end up virtually side by side.
Distance learning isn't the only selling point for fiber-optic networks. Interactivity and instantaneous access to materials are strong attractions for classroom teachers. The Westfield-Washington (Westfield, Indiana) network allows teachers access to myriad instructional materials stored in the school district's “technology distribution center.” With the push of a remote-control button, the teacher can call up a videotape, a print resource, or a live satellite feed. And multimedia materials can be used by teachers and students alike.
—Editor's note
The Westfield Washington Schools Corporation in rural Westfield, Indiana, for example, is located just one school district away from the IPS district. But its new fiber-optic network is not connected to the IREAD network, nor is there a plan for the connection to be made. The Westfield network, also up and running last fall, uses both copper wire and fiber optics to connect classrooms and offices in the district's three schools. The network is made possible by a partnership that includes GTE North and Ball State University's Center for Information and Communication Sciences in Muncie, Indiana.
The Driving Force
The race to rewire in optical fibers and the resulting duplicate networks, duplicate research, and multiple courting of customers is driven by one force—free enterprise. Terry Forkner says, “What we are really about here, is the rebuilding of the infrastructure for the Information Age. And up to now, there has been no concrete plan set out by any regulatory or legislative body. So in the absence of a plan, the marketplace is developing that network on its own. At this point, we are relying on free-market forces to build that infrastructure. And right now, it's a horse race.”
Typically, when companies introduce new technology, they court potential customers with immediate application needs. Once sold on the new technology, these customers-referred to as “key catalytic customers”—provide the initial funding for market expansion. They also showcase the technology, thus whetting the appetites of other potential customers.
Education has been targeted as a key catalytic customer for fiber-optic networks. Telcos and cable companies are courting the education market, big time. One result is model distance learning network start-ups all over the place. The IREAD and Westfield projects in Indiana are just two cases in point.
Is the fiber-optic race good for all concerned? Jon L. Harkness, chair of the NSTA's position paper on distance learning committee and director of the Wisconsin Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Network project (WISMATE, which is not a fiber-optic network), says he also “favors competition at this point.” Harkness thinks that the jury is still out on which is the best system or the best technology or combination of technologies. He prefers to “let the competition sort out the winners and losers.”
NEA's Watts expresses mixed feelings about the fiber race. “I think everyone ought to be free at this point to get in the marketplace. The competition will help us [implement state-of-the-art infrastructure] sooner,” he says. “But I do worry that we will wind up with a lot of fragmented networks that might not be compatible.”
Are multiple, often redundant, networks what most people are asking for when they speak in favor of fiber-optic implementation? During his election campaign, President Bill Clinton often spoke of creating a nationwide communications network to link schools, universities, libraries, hospitals, factories, etc. This goal is expected to take high priority in his administration, and Vice President Al Gore is expected to be the man who steers its course. Does Gore see this “national research and education network” as part of the many networks already (or soon to be) deployed by telephone and cable companies, private businesses, and school districts—or as yet another competing network?
What will the federal government's eventual role be in the implementation and regulation of these networks? The question, at present, seems to be an open one. When he spoke on the subject at Clinton's fall 1992 Economic Conference in Little Rock, Gore said, “…with the advanced high-capacity network like the national research and education network, it does seem to me that government ought to play a role in putting in place that backbone…. Most people think [the network] ought to be built by the federal government and then transitioned into private industry.”
Some educators assume that government will play a role in the ownership of the fiber-optic communications networks. Harkness expects that the fiber network will be “tax supported and government directed, to ensure equal access and reasonable rates, especially to schools.” Watts predicts that “government will play a role, but the network will be basically private.” On the other hand, phone company executives seem set on private ownership. Robert E. Allen, chairman of AT&T, made clear his preference for private enterprise ownership and control when he told Clinton's Economic Conference last fall, “I think the government should not build and/or operate such [communications] networks.”
Picking Up the Check
Cost-effectiveness is a major consideration. With all the duplication, will there be fiber networks put down that will never be used? “Yes,” Forkner replies. “Free enterprise will sort out the ones that are not competitive.”
And is the capital risk worth it? Forkner thinks so. “When the economic gain potential is this high, companies are going to take the risk,” he explains.
Does it matter to the public that the communications companies are racing and risking? Absolutely. Someone has to pay for that big capital investment, and rate payers are prime candidates.
In a June 9, 1992, New York Times article, Edmund L. Andrews estimates that the cost of providing broadband service to every home during the next 20 to 30 years will run between $100 and $400 billion. Andrews suggests that “the telephone companies want their customers to foot much of the bill up front.”
In fact, phone companies are petitioning regulating bodies to gain the right to depreciate their investments more quickly. According to Andrews, the logic is: The bigger the depreciation, the greater the companies' costs appear, and the more they can then charge customers. The FCC and some state regulators are lending a sympathetic ear, but consumer advocates are critical. Andrews quotes Gene Kimmelman, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America, who says, “This is a forced investment from rate payers, not from Wall Street, not from stockholders, but from ordinary customers. It's a risk-free loan—it's even better than a loan, because [the phone companies] never have to pay it back.”
Lisa Hendrickson, media information manager at Indiana Bell, takes issue with Kimmelman's statement. “That [argument] seems to imply that we are just going to put fiber out there, whether anybody wants it or not. But there really has to be a customer need for it. We are not going to just go and invest all the shareholder money in rewiring America, if the customers don't want it.”
Decisions, Decisions
Although many educators look with favor on the prospect of a national communications network, some also express concern. Harkness says, “I am concerned about the potential [for educators] to use available technology purely for the sake of its existence.” Frances Haley, executive director of the National Council for the Social Studies, thinks “the big issue in communications technology is accessibility [for] all.” She asks, “What guarantees are there that every district will have the means to be part of this planned communications network?” Haley cautions, “It seems to me we have to first ask what is it we are trying to achieve, and then explore the various ways we might achieve it, before we go off and implement one technology or another. We need a plan.”
Haley's point is well taken. According to the NEA's report to the U.S. Senate, the majority of the educational networks now in operation are “self-contained and proprietary”—they cannot communicate with one another. And in some cases, the education customer is investing in very expensive fiber-optic networks in the absence of any plan for their instructional use or for teacher training.
Educators are among the primary users of communications technology. It's time for those looking out for education's best interests to look sharp, for the fiber-optic race is on, and many of us still aren't sure which horse our money is riding on.
Joan Lewis is a freelance writer and independent educational program developer. Before her recent move from Chicago to Bloomington, Indiana, Lewis served in various creative and management positions for the Mazer Corporation; Ligature, Inc.; and Laidlaw Brothers, Publishers. She also has been an elementary classroom teacher.
Click here to access The Changing Concept of Classroom Sidebar that accompanied this article.