roundtable: Telecom Post - #0

roundtable: Telecom Post - #0

Telecom Post - #0

CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
Thu, 11 May 1995 14:25:16 -0400 (EDT) 

Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
Subject: Telecom Post - #0
To: roundtable@cni.org
Message-Id: <01HQDOUF42LK003F14@bentley.edu>


====================================================
################                   #############
################                   ##          #   
   ##                              #############    
   ## ### #   ### ###  #  #    #   ##   #  ### ###
   ## #   #   #   #   # # #    #   ##  # # #    #    
   ## ##  #   ##  #   # # ##  ##   ##  # # ###  #
   ## #   #   #   #   # # # ## #   ##  # #   #  #
   ## ### ### ### ###  #  #    #   ##   #  ###  # 
===============================================================
               Free Speech Media, LLC
                    May 5, 1995
                      Number 0
===============================================================
Compiled/edited/written by Coralee Whitcomb
please send all questions and problems to cwhitcom@bentley.edu
===============================================================

A Legislative Overview

For telecommunications policy, the legislative year is poised
to take off in a big way.  S652, the Telecommunications
Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 has passed through the
Senate Commerce Committee markup session.  Though
this legislation began its journey on the fast track, it has
slowed considerably.  Anti-terrorist concerns have jumped onto
the agenda ahead of the bill, pushing its floor date back to
late May. And, even then, the fast track looks unlikely.  Much
concern from the public interest community and the White House
has found its way into the media - promising a level of
contention that the fast track was meant to avoid. 

Two bills in the House have just been introduced as of May 3. 
Though telecommunication legislation was not part of the first
100 day agenda, Gingrich has a special place in his heart for
this issue.  While last year's House bills were passed with a
friendly, bipartisan spirit, this year that spirit is at risk. 

At the time of this writing, the House bills are not widely
available, however, S652, does a nice job of crystallizing the
issues and fears of the public interest.

COMPETITION:
The main objective for this legislation is to enable competition
in the telecommunication market.  The popular rationale is that
with today's technology, market forces should be used to provide
the best possible price and service for the consumer.  Cable,
RBOCs, long-distance, and cellular are all poised to compete in
each other's markets with interactive phone service and video
delivery.  The only thing that prevents competition
today is regulatory constraints.  Generally, the Republican
side of the aisle wants to lift the constraining regulations as
quickly and completely as possible.  In fact, there is strong
rumor that they'd like to do away with the FCC entirely.  The
White House and public interest are concerned that by lifting
constraints too quickly, the giants in the field, AT&T and the
RBOCs, will simply overrun the rest of the competition and we
are likely to return to an oligopoly or monopoly
system minus the regulatory oversight.

Ownership:
Right now there are regulatory constraints preventing ownership
of multiple forms of public media in a single market.  S652
would lift these restrictions.  Some of this is already taking
place, evidenced by the ability to use AT&T within the RBOC
calling area or mergers between cable and phone.  The White
House and public interest push for formulas that will stagger
the entry of one provider into another's territory only when
evidence of a fair playing field has developed.  This is
particularly true for RBOCs who enjoy monopoly hold over local
telephone.  They are forced to wait the longest to gain entry
into the lucrative long-distance market since their hold over
that market is the hardest crack.  In fact, it is thought that it
will take 10 years to achieve real competition in only 10% of
the local market.

To date, much regulation is concerned with the protection of a
"diversity of voices".  Lifting ownership restrictions within
markets will allow a single owner to control all media available
in a single market and will increase the coverage that market
enjoys from a cap of 25% ultimately to 50% of the nation.  It is
not difficult to do the numbers. Example:  Pick your favorite
broadcaster, say, Rupert Murdoch.  Then picture him owning 2
local broadcast stations, the newspaper, telephone, and cable
(which would have merged) - all in your town.

PRIVACY
By far the biggest uproar over S652 came from the "Exon
Amendment".  This amendment held the carrier (phone company,
internet provider, etc) liable for any "filthy, indecent, and
obscene" messages/images they transmitted.  This implied that
the carrier would then be responsible to monitor and censor all
traffic. That language has been amended to place the liability
on the sender, not the carrier, however, there is still much
confusion over the rights of the carriers to monitor and censor
at will. For example, how do we rate a naked body transmitted for
an anatomical lesson? A second bill, introduced by Senator Leahy,
does a much better job of achieving Exon's goal of preventing
stalking and harassment.

Digital Telephony refers to legislation that passed last year
that requiring all phone companies to build in the capability to
isolate and transmit phone calls in real time to the FBI (to
update the traditional wire tapping procedures used on analog
lines).  The public interest and Internet community raised a
fierce offence against this measure last year.  The bill passed,
nevertheless, with the support of the Administration. This year
opponents have a second chance, however, with an attempt to tap
into the recision mentality of Congress and rescind the $500m of
tax dollars that was to subsidize this transition.

ACCESS
Much has been said about achieving "universal access" to our
information infrastructure but little has really defined what
that means.  What is clear is that some forms of existing access
are already at risk.  Currently, cable franchises, in return for
local monopoly service, must return up to 5% of their revenues
to the municipality for the use of local public rights-of-way.
These monies are often used for PEG (public, educational,
government) access to the airwaves in the form of a public access
TV station.  With this arrangement, the public is provided with
free access and training to this very powerful medium.  When
RBOCs begin to offer video delivery to the home, they are not
required to make the same arrangements with the local government
because they are considered "common carriers".  (A common
carrier must carry all messages with the ability to pay.  ex.
phone calls) This could spell the end of any access for
non-commercial entities.  Of course, the cable companies argue
that if the RBOCs don't have to pay, they shouldn't have to.

S652 originally offered no special treatment for public interest
use of the infrastructure.  Fortunately, Senators Snowe and
Rockefeller successfully introduced an amendment to S652 that
would guarantee "incremental, cost-base, pricing" for libraries,
schools, and health clinics.  While not nearly as extensive as
the public interest community would like, it serves as a
starting point from which to work.  Foreclosure on the great
societal potential this infrastructure has for education, health
care, and civic participation due to the unaffordability of
access would be an opportunity we would not easily be able to
recapture in the future.

Today, May 5, the Internet backbone became 100% privately owned
and operated.  We've all heard the dire warnings of 500 channels
with nothing on.  Over 50% of Internet traffic is now commercial.

For all of us who have enjoyed the free-wheeling nature of the
Internet to date and those of us who have discovered the pleasure
of hearing from and speaking to a large audience - it is time to
take our civic duties seriously.  Our existing structures can be
enhanced by internet-like capabilities or they can be restricted
to vehicles devoted to commercial use and nothing more.  The
issues are difficult, but worth understanding.  We will be living
with the design this legislation produces for a long, long time.

[CNI Home Page]