roundtable: Benton Site
roundtable: Benton Site
Benton Site
W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Sat, 04 Feb 95 15:22:04 EST
Message-Id: <9502042023.AA00923@a.cni.org>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 95 15:22:04 EST
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>
Subject: Benton Site
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>
I just revieced a message from Andrew Blau. We were down this
morning--actually Suranet was. I will attach the What's going on with
the NII. Please let me know if you still have trouble.
Thanks,
Fletcher@cdinet.com
For a recent update, read What's going on with the National Information
Infrastructure, which explores what's ahead in 1995 for some of the
major players in the debate over America's telecommunications future.
Key players and places
Underlined words indicate a link to a new file or another Internet site
Congress-Torn between visions for tomorrow and industry's demands today
The Clinton Administration-Looking for low-cost ways to wire the country
The Federal Communications Commission-A likely focal point for public
interest efforts
States-Laboratories for developing the I-way
Challenges for nonprofits-Keeping a place at the negotiating table
How to use this World Wide Web site
More about the Benton Foundation
Larry Kirkman, Executive Director
Karen Menichelli, Associate Director
Andrew Blau, Director, Communications Policy Project
1634 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
(202)638-5770
benton@benton.org
http://cdinet.com/Benton
What's going on
with the National Information Infrastructure
The 1994 elections dramatically changed the political landscape shaping
the National Information Infrastructure(NII). With Republicans in
control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, deregulation of the
telephone and cable television industries is now likely to occur at an
even faster pace than seemed probable in the first two years of the
Clinton Administration. The heightened emphasis in Washington on
letting market forces operate without interference means that the
federal government is likely to assume a smaller role in decisions about
how the NII is structured. But this, in turn, suggests that state and
local governments and nonprofit organizations will have an opportunity
to play much bigger roles, along with industry.
The upheaval in Washington poses new challenges for the public
interest sector as it seeks to ensure that the converging telephone,
television, and computer technologies provide noncommercial services and
are available to everyone. "Nonprofits have to think about their role
in a fundamentally different way," says Andrew Blau, director of the
Communications Policy Project at the Benton Foundation, which
commissioned this report. "We can't wait for the federal government to
make openings for us."
In particular, Blau says, public interest groups must couple the
continuing effort to sway policymakers in Washington with more work at
the state and local levels, where a lot of decisions are going to be
made about who has access to the new technologies and under what terms.
And at least as important, nonprofit groups will have to recognize that
they are not just participants in an abstract policy debate or consumers
of whatever services the private sector decides to produce. Instead,
they are providers and users of the information that could be the
lifeblood of the new communications system.
As market forces assume an ever-larger role in shaping the
information superhighway, the nonprofit sector will have to demonstrate
that an open, interactive, high-capacity information system can be
economically viable. This will require creating and expanding networks
in the noncommercial sector, increasing the supply and improving the
quality of information available over these networks, enhancing the
technical skills of users, and boosting the market clout of nonprofit
organizations by forming consortia or other alliances to purchase
telecommunications services. Such market action could go a long way
toward assuring the availability of information services and bringing
down their cost.
There may be no alternative to developing such self-reliance.
"There probably aren't going to be substantial new entitlements," says
New York Law School Professor Allen Hammond. While Congress should take
steps to assure that providers don't discriminate against consortia of
small businesses or nonprofit organizations, the smaller players must
take the initiative. "It's not enough to say it's right, it's good,
and we should do it," says Hammond. "You need allies."
This report explores what's ahead in 1995 for some of the major
players in the debate over America's telecommunications future.
Congress
Underlined names have a direct e-mail link
Underlined words indicate a link to a new file or another Internet site
Key players and places
The House
Rep. Newt Gingrich(R) of Georgia-Speaker of the House. A forceful
advocate of the information superhighway. Joined House Minority Leader
Richard Gephardt(D) of Missouri to announce the establishment of a
congressional online public access information system.
Rep. Jack Fields(R) of Texas-Chair of the House Telecommunications
Subcommittee. Helped devise telecommunications legislation that won
overwhelming House approval in 1994.
Rep. Edward Markey(D) of Massachusetts-former Chair and now ranking
minority member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. Expected
to work closely with Rep. Fields of Texas. The two co-wrote
telecommunications legislation that won overwhelming House approval in
1994.
Rep. Thomas Bliley(R) of Virginia-Chair of the House Commerce
Committee. Will co-write, with Rep. Fields, the telecommunications bill
due in early 1995.
The Senate
Sen. Bob Dole(R) of Kansas-Senate majority leader. Circulated his
own draft telecommunications bill in 1994 that would have rapidly
relaxed government controls on both the telephone and cable television
industries.
Sen. Larry Pressler(R) of South Dakota-Chair of the Senate Commerce
Committee. Favors access to information services in rural areas.
Sen. Bob Packwood(R) of Oregon-former Chair of the Commerce
Committee in the early 1980s and long-time opponent of cable and
telephone regulation.
Online
THOMAS: Legislative information on the Internet
The U.S. Senate Gopher Directory -committee assignments, yearly
Senate calendar, latest daily committee hearing schedules, current
week's Senate floor schedule, visitor information.
House of Representatives Gopher Directory -committee assignments,
yearly House of Representatives calendar, latest daily committee
hearing schedules, current week's House floor schedule, visitor
information.
House of Representatives Constituent E-Mail System -e-mail
directory for House members and committees.
C-SPAN Gopher -program schedules, press releases, 1994
Congressional election results.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who more than anyone else is setting the
tone for the new Congress, is a forceful advocate of a truly
interactive, open system, touting it as a way of expanding democracy,
not just a vehicle for bringing new entertainment and commerce into
people's homes. On the second day of the new Congress, he joined House
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri to announce the
establishment of THOMAS (for Thomas Jefferson), an on-line system that
gives citizens access through the Internet to such congressional
information as the text of bills, the legislative calendar, and
summaries of floor proceedings. In its first four-and-a-half days,
28,000 citizens and 2,500 institutions tapped into the system,
downloading more than 175,000 documents. The future, Gingrich told a
forum held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation on January 10, will
require "radically higher understanding of the information age." And he
said nobody should be left out: "There has to be a missionary spirit in
America that says to the poorest child in America, 'Internet is for
you.'"
But lawmakers may find themselves torn between that vision and the
demands of an industry that sees the information superhighway primarily
as a way of delivering movies, games, home shopping, and other forms of
entertainment. According to the Center for Responsive Politics,
political action committees representing the communications and
electronics businesses gave congressional candidates almost $5.5 million
between January 1993 and June 1994, the most recent period for which
figures are available. And that was just a small part of the
industries' actual contributions. For the two years leading up to the
1992 elections, such PACs gave $9.7 million, and individuals from the
same industries kicked in $11.5 million more, the center reports.
Rep. Jack Fields of Texas-the biggest House recipient of political
contributions from communications, media, entertainment, telephone
utilities, and telecommunication services and equipment PACs-will head
the House Telecommunications Subcommittee in 1995. He is expected to
work closely with Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the former chair
and now the panel's ranking Democrat. The two helped devise
telecommunications legislation that won overwhelming House approval in
1994. Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the former chair of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, already has introduced
essentially the same bill, now called H.R. 411.
In the Senate, leadership in the telecommunications field will fall
to Sen. Larry Pressler of South Dakota, Chair of the Senate Commerce
Committee. He has shown concern about the issue of access to
information services in rural areas. But he will find himself pushed
toward an aggressive deregulatory stance by Senate Majority Leader
Robert Dole of Kansas and by Sen. Bob Packwood, head of the Commerce
Committee in the early 1980s and long a dynamic opponent of cable and
telephone regulation.
The regional "Baby Bell" telephone companies, which are among the
information industries' most generous campaign contributors, could be
big winners in the new Congress. They demonstrated their political
clout in 1994 by playing a key role in blocking telecommunications
legislation in the Senate. Their position this year will be
strengthened by defeat of Rep. Jack Brooks of Texas, who as Chair of
the House Judiciary Committee sought restraints on the regional
telephone companies. The rise of Sen. Dole to the position of Senate
majority leader also should be good news for them. Dole has sought to
ease regulation of the regional phone companies since at least 1985, and
he circulated a draft telecommunications bill in 1994 that would have
rapidly relaxed government controls on both the telephone and cable
television industries. "Large telephone companies have acquired more
clout," says Andy Schwartzman, executive director of the Media Access
Project.
In the new environment, it's doubtful that Congress will be willing
to use government power to extend the principle of universal access to
cover new communications technologies. "Anything that looks like social
engineering, the (regional telephone companies) will oppose," predicts
David Moulton, who was chief counsel and staff director of the House
Telecommunications Subcommittee until the Republican takeover of
Congress. Adds Gene Kimmelman, who was counsel for the Senate Judiciary
Committee's antitrust subcommittee during the last Congress: "Any kind
of public intervention will be in trouble."
In particular, the Republican Congress is likely to be reluctant to
keep provisions in the 1994 legislation that would have given the
Federal Communications Commission responsibility to define and ensure
universal access and to explore the possibility of offering nonprofit
organizations preferential rates on the information superhighway. "Had
we had an FCC, FDA (Food and Drug Administration), or an FTC (Federal
Trade Commission) in Silicon Valley," Gingrich says, "we'd be about
150,000 or 200,000 jobs short, and we'd be back with mainframe computers
because you'd still have bureaucrats studying whether or not to allow
PCs to even exist."
The idea of using government power to foster noncommercial content
on the information superhighway also faces considerable challenges. The
new Republican majority has vowed to go after the National Endowment for
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. And one of the
biggest fights of 1995 may be over the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, which Gingrich has vowed to "zero out" (it is getting
about $285 million in federal funds this fiscal year).
Similarly, any government efforts to influence the choice or design
of particular technologies will face more skepticism. The National
Institute for Standards and Technology, which has done some work on
telecommunications, and the Commerce Department's Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program, which has provided grants to help
build public broadcast stations, could both be in trouble. The National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, which in 1994
provided $24 million in grants for information infrastructure
demonstration projects and has been appropriated $64 million in 1995,
hasn't come under fire yet. But it could face the budget ax as
Republicans seek to fulfill their commitment to restrain spending and
move toward a balanced federal budget.
Still, the Republicans have pledged to approach the legislation in
a bipartisan fashion, and they have set an ambitious timetable for
action. House Speaker Gingrich has said he would like the House to act
on a bill in the first hundred days of the new Congress, even though
telecommunications wasn't part of the GOP's "Contract with America"
campaign promises. Rep. Fields and Rep. Thomas Bliley, chairman of
the House Commerce Committee and a self-professed "friend of business,"
will seek a House vote by Easter. Fields said last week that he hopes
to hold hearings in late January or early February, mark up a bill in
committee in late February or early March, and take the legislation to
the House floor before Easter. And Sen. Pressler, whose committee held
its first hearing on telecommunications policy less than a week after
Congress convened, promised to deliver a bill to President Clinton by
July 4. Within days of the hearing, Pressler began circulating draft
language for the "Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of
1995," which outlines the goals and key mechanisms of the Senate
Republican approach.
But aggressive Democratic opposition could be stirred if
Republicans mount an assault on the 1992 Cable Act, as some have
threatened. "If that happens, it will become a very partisan
competition," warns Moulton. "As soon as there is no Democratic-
Republican consensus, the interest groups will take over."
It's unclear how hard industry will push for legislation. The
regional telephone companies, in particular, have accomplished much
without legislation. Three federal district courts and one appeals
court already have ruled that the 1992 Cable Television Act improperly
blocked them from offering video services over telephone lines. In
December 1994, Ameritech Corp. won FCC approval to build a fiber optic
network and offer interactive video services to more than a million
homes in the Midwest. The company says it hopes to start offering 390
channels by the end of the year. "It's not a matter of whether, it's
only a matter of when the telephone companies enter the cable business,"
says New York Law School Prof. Hammond.
Meanwhile, cable operators are rushing to enter the information
services business. Just since congressional attempts to legislate
reform collapsed last September, Comcast Corp., one of the nation's top
four cable operators, announced plans to deliver online services over
its network, joining competitors Continental Cablevision Inc., Cox
Enterprises Inc., and Cablevision Systems Corp. in trying to tap the
capacity of coaxial cable. And Microsoft Corp. has sold
Telecommunications Inc., the nation's largest cable operator, a 20%
stake in its online service. By the end of 1996, boasts TCI Chairman
John Malone, fiber optic or coaxial cable will cover virtually the
entire country and the "terrestrial network that is the superhighway"
will be in place. "We'll be done except for the terminals," he recently
told Wired magazine.
The Clinton Administration
Underlined words indicate a link to a new file or another Internet site
Underlined names have a direct e-mail link
Key players and places
The White House
President Clinton
Vice President Gore
Thomas Kalil-Director to the National Economic Council
U.S. Department of Commerce
Secretary Ron Brown
Larry Irving-Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information, U.S. Department of Commerce
The National Information Infrastructure (NII)
National Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
NTIA Grant Programs-TIIAP/PTFP/NECET
Laura Breeden-Director, Telecommunications & Information
Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP is part of NTIA)
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)
Bruce Lehman-Director of the U.S. Patent Office
Government Information Locator System (GILS)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Performance Review
Thomas Kalil, director to the White House's National Economic Council,
believes the Administration and Congress can work together on
telecommunications. The nonprofit sector, he argues, should seek
provisions in the legislation that assure nondiscriminatory access to
the information superhighway. "You shouldn't have the same companies
controlling content and serving as the conduit," he argues. And despite
the current industry emphasis on using the system primarily to deliver
entertainment, he says cable companies and others should be encouraged
to deploy technologies that don't preclude the possibility for full-
fledged two-way communications.
But telecommunications legislation is just a small part of the
effort to build the NII, Kalil notes. He says the Administration is
forging ahead on other fronts. Vice President Gore hosted a federal-
state-local conference on January 9, 1995, to discuss the role of the
states and the federal government in telecommunications reform. And the
NTIA plans in early February to announce guidelines for the second round
of information infrastructure demonstration grants. In the first round,
"We learned there's a tremendous amount of interest and preparedness,"
says Laura Breeden, the program's director. Much as it did in the first
round, the NTIA this year will be looking for projects that address such
issues as how disadvantaged communities can gain access to the
information infrastructure and how to break down barriers that impede
the development of new information services. But Breeden says the
competition will be structured differently from last year's open-ended
process, with applicants now required to compete for funds in more
narrowly defined categories. She says the agency plans to hold a series
of meetings in different regions of the country to inform the public
about the program and bring potential applicants together.
The Administration also is expected early this year to report the
results of a comprehensive review of intellectual property and copyright
issues involved in the NII. The effort has been headed by Bruce Lehman,
head of the U.S. Patent Office. The Administration also will be
implementing the Government Information Locator System, which aims to
give citizens access to every government agency through the Internet.
The Office of Management and Budget in December approved guidelines
spelling out what kinds of information should be put in the system. The
Administration already operates a bulletin board that lists every
committee and subcommittee in government looking at telecommunications
policy. The Administration also has established closed networks linking
officials-budget analysts and legal officers, for instance-in various
agencies.
Beyond its "reinventing government" efforts, the Administration is
finding itself forced by budget constraints to seek ways to promote the
information infrastructure that don't cost money. Kalil says it is
looking at ways to use government buying power to lure sophisticated
information services to areas that otherwise might not get them at
affordable prices. If government offices demand a sufficient volume of
such services in rural areas, providers will be prompted to establish a
presence there, he explains. The result: other users will be able to
tap into the information superhighway at relatively low cost.
Wiring schools to connect with the Internet remains one of the more
popular information-infrastructure ideas. Vice President Gore has
recommended using some "surplus" funds from Federal Communications
Commission spectrum auctions to pay for such a wiring effort. But that
money, like almost all federal funds during a time of tight budgets, is
sure to be hotly contested. (Rep. Markey proposed using some of the
surplus to pay for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an idea that
has little chance given House Speaker Gingrich's antipathy toward public
television.)
And significantly, the National Information Infrastructure Advisory
Council soon will issue a draft report on the idea of offering nonprofit
users preferential rates on the information superhighway. Senate
antitrust aide Kimmelman says telecommunications legislation should
require that noncommercial users of the information superhighway be
charged only the incremental cost of providing their service, not the
total underlying cost. The idea isn't without precedent. Nonprofit
organizations, for instance, have long qualified for lower postal rates.
Kimmelman says the concept needs further economic analysis.
The Federal Communications Commission
Key players and places
The Federal Communications Commission
Andy Schwartzman-Executive Director of the Media Access Project
Jeffrey Chester-Executive Director of the Center for Media Education
Jill Lesser-Director, Civic Media Project
With Congress less inclined to pursue social objectives, the FCC could
become a more important focus for public interest efforts. "The FCC
will be particularly fruitful given the change in Congress," says
Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Media Education.
In particular, Chester's group is pressing the FCC to issue rules
setting aside cable television channels for noncommercial usage. It
also is pressing the FCC to establish special rates and otherwise
facilitate nonprofit programming on telephone companies' new "video
dialtone" systems.
With court action pending on whether the FCC's 1994 decision to
authorize telephone companies to offer video services violated the 1992
cable law, critics like the Media Access Project's Schwartzman will be
pressing the Commission to limit what they see as a grave threat to the
principle of common carriage.
The Commission says it will require telephone companies that offer
video services to continue acting as common carriers-that is, it will
prevent them from controlling what video programming goes out over their
wires. But Schwartzman and other critics worry that telephone companies
could affect content by packaging video services in certain ways, or
that their video services could crowd out other uses of the telephone
lines. Schwartzman says that while his concerns can't be completely
assuaged by how the FCC handles specific applications, they could be
mitigated if the Commission adopts cost-allocation rules that spare
telephone users from having to subsidize video services, imposes strong
controls to prevent redlining, and takes steps to ensure that
noncommercial uses of the telephone system aren't impeded by the new
video commercial ventures.
Meanwhile, the FCC will come under renewed pressure from
broadcasters to liberalize rules limiting the number of radio and
television stations that can be under the same ownership. Broadcasters
contend that such a relaxation is necessary to enable them to achieve
economies of scale. Schwartzman says that any changes the FCC is likely
to make will tend to reduce diversity in broadcasting.
The Commission will also continue auctioning spectrum in 1995,
completing its sale of licenses for new wireless "personal
communications services" and proceeding with auctions for microwave and
other competitors to cable television. Schwartzman voices confidence
that rules governing the auction process give small businesses and women
and minority owners a substantial opportunity to win licenses.
Enforcement of the 1992 Cable Act will be a continuing
preoccupation. The Commission is under great pressure from cable
operators to allow higher rates, at least in part because they hope to
invest substantially in new plant and equipment in order to compete with
telephone companies. The Commission, which in 1994 allowed cable
companies higher rates for new programming options, probably will face
political pressure to keep rates down. But the new Republican majority
in Congress might be more tolerant of rate hikes than Democrats were.
The states
Key players and places
Linda Tarr-Whelan-President and Chief Executive of the Center for
Policy Alternatives
Laurie Itkin-telecommunications policy expert at the National
Conference of State Legislatures
Michelle Harris-Assistant Director for congressional and public
relations at the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners
Ron Choura-staff analyst for Michigan's Public Service Commission
Early indications are that the increased federal emphasis on
deregulation will be mirrored in state governments, according to Linda
Tarr-Whelan, president and chief executive of the Center for Policy
Alternatives. But she notes that it's too early to predict what course
states will take, since there has been a 40% turnover in state
legislatures as a result of the 1994 elections.
To the extent Republicans pursue policies designed to reduce
federal power, states could become laboratories for developing the
information superhighway. The Center has developed model
telecommunications legislation for states, addressing such issues as
access, privacy, adequacy of information, and competition among
communications service providers.
In addition to being more inclined to favor deregulation, states
are showing increased interest in using telecommunications policies to
spur development, Tarr-Whelan says. States are exploring a wide variety
of approaches to building the information superhighway-ranging from
Iowa, where the state government owns and controls a 3,000-mile fiber
optic network; to North Carolina, where the state helps finance and run
a largely privately owned fiber-optic system that is projected to grow
to 116,000 miles; to California, where Pacific Bell promises to build a
network that will provide advanced data and video services to the entire
state by the year 2010. The Center plans to hold a conference on
February 28 exploring telecommunications as a development tool.
A Republican commitment to federalism also could mean that states
will assume a bigger role in defining and ensuring universal service.
"The FCC and the states have worked together to promote universal
service goals, but defining the precise components of universal service
has in the past been a state responsibility," says Laurie Itkin,
telecommunications policy expert at the National Conference of State
Legislatures.
Local officials increasingly are becoming involved in
telecommunications issues. On January 15, a wide range of officials from
business, government, and the nonprofit sector gathered in Honolulu
for the "Hawaii Information Congress" to advise the state legislature on
information issues. Oregon has launched a statewide planning process
involving nonprofit groups, among others. Local officials are getting
involved, too; last March, a broad-based mayor's advisory committee in
San Diego released a detailed report on telecommunications.
Connecticut, Vermont, and Wisconsin already have approved
telecommunications legislation setting standards for universal service,
among other things. Further state action is likely. California's
Public Utilities Commission is due to present recommendations on January
6, 1996, on what services are essential, how to provide them to all
people at affordable prices, and how to make advanced technology more
widely available. Itkin says the California commission is looking
specifically at ways to include "enhanced services" in the definition of
universal service.
The Kansas legislature directed the Kansas Corporation Commission
to define universal service, determine how well it currently is being
achieved, establish telecommunications policies for high-cost areas, and
define "lifeline telephone service" and how to pay for it. A task force
appointed by the governor already has recommended that every citizen
have access to single-party touch-tone service and a package of
electronic service programs that would grow as new services become
available at reasonable cost. North Dakota plans to study
telecommunications needs, policy issues, and barriers to access. Nevada
has established an advisory Telecommunications Council to explore ways
to use telecommunications to improve the delivery of state services.
Technological change isn't the only factor prompting states to
address the issue of universal service. Growing competition in the
intrastate and local telephone markets is also forcing them to act.
Michelle Harris, assistant director for congressional and public
relations at the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, says Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Massachusetts, Montana,
New York, Washington, and Wisconsin have moved aggressively to allow
local service competition. More are expected to follow suit.
Some community groups are eager to see states retain a big
regulatory role over the information infrastructure because public
utilities commissions at times have used their authority to force
service providers to build infrastructure. In Ohio, regulators recently
required Ameritech to contribute $18 million to wire schools, plus $2.2
million to create 14 training and access centers in seven cities, in
return for winning greater freedom to raise rates.
But some contend that market forces can be employed to accomplish
such objectives, possibly at lower cost. In Michigan, businesses and
schools have joined forces to purchase access to the Internet. The
businesses pay the cost of connecting the schools (for which they can
claim tax deductions). Once the service is extended, they then can tap
into the network themselves at a very low cost. Such arrangements take
the high cost out of gaining access to the information superhighway.
Small users hoping to use the most sophisticated information
services currently are subject to the whims of the market. Those in
urban areas or near large buyers who attract capital investment by
telecommunications companies can obtain services at relatively low cost.
But those who aren't so conveniently located can find service quite
expensive. "You've got to be in the right place at the right time,"
says Ron Choura, a staff analyst for the Michigan Public Service
Commission. To take the serendipity out of buying information services,
he says, "consumers and local communities have to be much more engaged."
Challenges for nonprofits
Underlined words indicate a link to a new file or another Internet site
Underlined names have a direct e-mail link
Key players and places
Laura Breeden-Director, Telecommunications & Information
Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP is part of NTIA)
Andrew Blau-Director of the Communications Policy Project at the
Benton Foundation
Stephen Wolff-former Director of the networking division at the
National Science Foundation
Jerry Berman-Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and
Technology
Robert Loeb-President of Telecommunication Cooperative Network
(TCN)
Public Information Exchange
Unison Institute
RTK ("Right to Know") Net
National Public Telecommunications Network
Tom Freebairn-The Information Infrastructure Clearinghouse
Patrice McDermott-OMB Watch's information policy analyst
American Library Association
Leslie Harris-Director of Public Policy, People for the American
Way
Jill Lesser-Director, Civic Media Project
While seeking to influence policy will continue to be important,
nonprofit groups also have to become "creators of content, users of
information systems, and participants in the marketplace" says the
Benton Foundation's Blau. "Fortunately, the technology itself points to
small-scale, affordable projects that can be done now by nonprofits
providing service at the grassroots level."
There is ample evidence that the noncommercial sector represents a
significant share of the market for emerging information technologies.
Polls last year by Macworld Magazine, Louis Harris, Dataquest, and MCI
showed that consumers by substantial margins are more interested in
receiving news and civic improvement services than home shopping and
entertainment.
The explosive, decentralized growth of the Internet itself confirms
the existence of a burgeoning market. It has grown from having just 213
host computers in August 1981 to 992,000 in July 1992 to 3.2 million
last July. In just the four months ended last November, the number of
host computers leaped by more than 700,000, to almost 3.9 million.
The Internet is "vigorous and bubbling," with "no sign of middle-
age spread," says Stephen Wolff, until recently the director of the
networking division at the National Science Foundation. While
commercial use of the Internet is increasing-a growing number of
companies are using it to spread information about themselves, and
arrangements to transfer funds are becoming available-much of the
traffic remains noncommercial.
In a political environment hostile to government intervention,
building the noncommercial market may be more important than political
clout. There clearly is potential for growth. Today, 35.4 million-or
slightly more than a third-of all U.S. households have computers,
according to Link Resources Corp., a market research firm. Link
projects that the number will jump to 59 million by the end of the
decade. And the number of households subscribing to online services
will surge from 3.5 million to 25 million.
Nonprofits may thus have to adjust their thinking to recognize the
new opportunities presented by such expansion. "Public interest groups
that want government to build the network or to set aside part of the
network for a public right of way are in serious trouble," warns Jerry
Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology.
"There is no consensus for that."
There's a greater chance of building support for the idea of using
market forces to foster public uses of the information superhighway.
Robert Loeb, President of the Telecommunications Cooperative Network,
argues that public interest groups should stop worrying about securing
rights-of-way on the information superhighway and focus instead on
producing and marketing high-value, noncommercial information that
commands space by dint of its value. Loeb, whose organization helps
nonprofits band together to purchase telecommunications services, says
the problem of gaining access is "miniscule" compared with the cost of
producing good programming or information and promoting its
distribution. The solution: "a cooperative marketing strategy that
recognizes that, in an information society, nonprofits produce what
everybody wants."
Loeb urges nonprofits to start thinking of themselves more as
producers of information than as consumers. As producers, he argues,
they should seek compensation for their output. Currently, he says,
nonprofits frequently give away information they have compiled, only to
see commercial vendors sell it for a profit. In the policy arena, Loeb
says that government, rather than continually funding institutions like
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, should provide seed money-or
"venture capital"- to help launch information enterprises that can
become self-sustaining once their start-up needs are met.
Nonprofit groups increasingly are helping cultivate the market for
information services. The newly formed Public Information Exchange, for
instance, is helping to organize sectors of the nonprofit world to serve
as providers of online information. The initial alliances it is forming
are among health, environmental, and voter education groups. OMB Watch
and the Unison Institute in November started putting Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act data online through their RTK ("Right to Know") Net. The
two prodded the Department of Housing and Urban Development to make the
data available, and after they won the contract to put it online, they
added information from the Census Bureau's American Housing Survey,
enabling users to correlate bank mortgage-lending behavior with housing
characteristics in various census tracts. Meanwhile, the National
Public Telecommunications Network is aggressively promoting community
networking. Its "free net movement," which seeks to help communities
establish central bulletin boards and e-mail systems, just announced
plans to add 35 to 40 new affiliates in the Great Lakes region.
Thomas Freebairn, director of the the Information Infrastructure
Clearinghouse, says there is a tremendous need for technical training
and assistance in the nonprofit world. Noncommercial organizations
generally haven't developed as much technical proficiency in using the
information superhighway as many corporations have, but efforts are
under way to give the nonprofit sector technical support. A coalition
including the Bauman Foundation and OMB Watch, for instance, plans to
survey various nonprofit groups to determine, among other things, their
technical needs in using the information superhighway. It hopes to
secure funds to conduct briefings, tailored to the needs it finds, to
help community groups identify government information sources that would
help them form "sustainable communities," says Patrice McDermott, OMB
Watch's information policy analyst.
As such activities demonstrate, public interest advocates have come
a long way in the last year toward gaining a voice in shaping the
National Information Infrastructure. But the arena has grown, and the
challenge has become both bigger and more varied. As Blau and others
see it, the process of building a constituency for noncommercial
services is just beginning. In Washington DC, nonprofit groups will
have to fight to keep the place they gained at the negotiating table
last year. And while continuing the effort to convince the federal
government of the need to hold open avenues for noncommercial use of
emerging communications technologies, they also will have to become more
involved at the local and state levels, where interest in communications
policy is rapidly growing.
But a rising number of public interest advocates believe even more
is required. They say nonprofit groups must also work with the
telecommunications industry and assert their role as full partners in
shaping the emerging infrastructure. As Blau and Loeb see it,
nonprofits must come to see themselves not just as advocates but as
participants in the new system. In the latter role, nonprofits must
take the initiative to produce high-quality, useful, noncommercial
information. And they must seek to ensure that such information is
widely accessible. Only by doing so will the nonprofit sector be able
to demonstrate that a truly open, interactive, high-capacity information
system can be built and sustained.
This update of What's Going On was downloaded from the Benton
Foundation's World Wide Web server for its Communications Policy
Project. Use Mosaic or another WWW browser and url to
http://cdinet.com/Benton. Benton commissioned Christopher Conte and
Communications Development Incorporated in Washington DC to prepare this
update. Conte formerly was an editor at the Wall Street Journal.
Navigation
Home-return to the Communications Policy Project home page
Search this report by keyword
Retrieve-print or download Postscript, RTF, or text versions of this
document
Feedback-send comments about the Communications Policy Project
Order this document from the Benton Foundation
All these links are represented throughout this site with icons.
![[CNI Home Page]](/Images/home.gif)