le for high-speed use. This still leaves room for one or more upstream cable modem channels (either of the 6-MHz bandwidth of a TV channel or, in some cases, 3 MHz), as well as a channel for telephony. Several vendors created dedicated HFC telephony systems during the 1990s. AT&T Technologies, even before it became Lucent, created an analog system capable of mapping 240 tele- phones onto a TV channel; although piloted by SNET in Connecticut, it was discontinued before mass deployment. Tellabs and Arris Interactive, however, both developed successful TDM digital telephony systems and deployed mil- lions of lines apiece on various operators' networks. Cable Modems Sparked a Cable ISP Boomlet When the Internet boom hit, many cable companies were thus in an attractive position. They had shiny new HFC networks, and the cable modem industry Competitive Access Providers, the Costly Way to Local Competition had been reborn to take advantage of them. Early cable modems were proprie- tary; the customer-side modem and the head end cable modem termination sys- tem (CMTS) had to come from the same vendor. In 1996, CableLabs again retained Arthur D. Little Inc., this time to put together a consensus standard for cable modems, called Data Over Cable System Interface Specification (DOCSIS). By 1998, DOCSIS-compliant cable modems and CMTSs were on the market, facilitating volume rollout. In 1999, DOCSIS 1.1 was specified, adding the ability to dynamically reserve bandwidth to individual modems, feature especially useful for cable telephony. This led to another set of Cable- Labs standards, PacketCable, that standardized a method of providing Voice over IP over DOSCIS 1.1 cable modems. Hardware prices were set to fall as vol- umes rose. By 1995, pioneering MSOs such as Continental Cablevision had installed cable modem networks in a few cities. Continental had built its own in- house ISP (Continental Express), which remained intact after its acquisition by US West, which renamed the company MediaOne (and its ISP Highway One). But t