roundtable: Telecom Post #1

roundtable: Telecom Post #1

Telecom Post #1

CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
Wed, 17 May 1995 22:16:26 -0400 (EDT) 

Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 22:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
Subject: Telecom Post #1
To: roundtable@cni.org
Message-Id: <01HQMJ22D15E004U25@bentley.edu>


====================================================
################                      #############
################                      ##          #
      ##                              #############
      ## ### #   ### ###  #  #    #   ##   #  ### ###
      ## #   #   #   #   # # #    #   ##  # # #    #
      ## ##  #   ##  #   # # ##  ##   ##  # # ###  #  
      ## #   #   #   #   # # # ## #   ##  # #   #  #
      ## ### ### ### ###  #  #    #   ##   #  ###  # 
==================================================== 

              		 Free Speech Media, LLC                    

				May 16, 1995

                      		Number 1

 ==============================================================

Compiled, written, and edited by Coralee Whitcomb Please direct
comments and suggestions to cwhitcom@bentley.edu

 =============================================================== 

The Telecom Post will be published weekly while the U.S.
Congress reconfigures our telecommunication reality.  It is
posted to a number of lists and is also available from the CPSR
listserv.  To subscribe send to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG with the
message SUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST YOUR NAME.

		=========================================

Legislative Timeline

Though telecommunications legislation is said to be on the fast
track in both the House and Senate, a number of both  internal
and external snags seem to be waiting in the wings.  The White
House has weighed in with objections to S652 and the Justice and
Commerce departments have raised their voices as well.  The
House bill, H1555, will apparently undergo a good deal of
scrutiny from various quarters as its bipartisan spirit is on
the wane.  Though everyone seems determined to pass legislation
this year,  its ride on the fast track seems to have slowed down
enough for all us to get a look at it.



The administration has finally come forward with a set of goals
for the NII.  They are:

1.	The NII should be many-to-many (not one-to-many)

2.	The NII should support a wide variety of applications (not
	just video)

3.	The NII should lower barriers to publishing 

4.	The NII should provide low barriers to access providers

5.	The NII should be flexible and able to take advantage of the
	continuous technological changes



S. 652 - Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of
1995

Costs

The Senate Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office, and
International Communications Association have determined that
the bill is "revenue-generating" and would serve as an "indirect
tax"  on the consumer.  Increased revenue would stem from the
cessation of rate of return regulation by states and cities. The
International Communications Association estimates this as $44
billion telco rate increase in five years. The universal service
requirements would raise costs and therefore rates passed on to
rate payers by $7 billion, constituting an indirect tax. This
new wrinkle means the Finance Committee has to get involved
Finance is headed by Senator Packwood, one of the two "no" votes
in the Commerce Committee.  Taxing legislation must originate in
the House.  



The Consumer Federation of America and The American Association
of Retired Persons argue, along with V. P. Gore, that the
deregulation of cable rates will result in much higher costs to
the average American taxpayer.  Current language requires cable
rate regulation only when cable rates "substantially exceed" the
national average.  Given that two cable companies control 40% of
the market - that average would not be difficult to control.



Competition

The House and Senate legislation drastically reduce the role of
the Justice Department citing its inabililty to make quick
determinations as the reason.  Justice Department Antitrust
Chief Anne Bingaman argues that the DOJ can do better and should
be in charge of applying the Section 8(c) test of the Modified
Final Judgment in determining whether Bell entry into long
distance presents "no substantial possibility" of impeding
competition.  The current legislation manages this with the FCC
using a checklist in order to determine if competition exists. 
Bingaman argues that both FCC and DOJ should analyze different
aspects of each case. Senate Judiciary Chairman, Orrin Hatch
(R-UT) is inclined to support a greater DOJ role as is the White
House. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Il) has introduced H.R. 1528 that
retains the role of DOJ but changes the key standard to
"dangerous probability" that a Bell company could create a
monopoly situation. Though Bingaman doesn't approve of that
language either, it opens the door to rebuild a DOJ presence in
the game.



Privacy

The much publicized Exon Amendment is still under the knife. 
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has introduced S.714, the Child
Protection, User Empowerment, and Free Expression in Interactive
Media Study measure.  The Department of Justice claims that the
Exon approach will actually hamstring their attempts to enforce
child pornography and obscenity laws.  Leahy's bill, on the
other hand, encourages the development of technologies to enable
the screening of unwanted material.  It blocks, not censors,
content without drawing boundaries around the First Amendment.



S 735 - The Electronic Surveillance Provisions of the
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.

As  should be expected, the Oklahoma City bombing gave a leg-up
fans of surveillance. Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) and Sen. Orrin
Hatch (R-UT) have co-sponsored bill S. 735 to fund the digital
telephony infrastructure. The Electronic Privacy Information
Center has lead the cry against this funding claiming that it
will do less to enable criminal investigations than to develop a
surveillance infrastructure on all  telephone communications. 
The Dole-Hatch bill would also permit foreign government agents
to participate in the interception of communications and to
receive such communications.  The law surrounding foreign use of
these interceptions is not clearly explained. More information
can be found at http://epic/terrorism or wiretap@epic.org.



S 710 - The Communications Interoperability Act of 1995

In the interest of the fullest  degree of interoperability
possible and in order to enjoy the greatest possible benefit from 
our information infrastructure, Senator Bob Kerry has
sponsored S710.  This bill calls for the FCC and NIST to monitor
voluntary industry standards processes and to "assist these
bodies in the identification and promotion of open and
interoperable interface specifications."



H.R. 1555 - Communications Act of 1995

This year's House bill is co-sponsored, unsurprisingly, by Rep.
Thomas Bliley (R-VA) and Rep. Jack Fields (R-TX).  Conspicuously
absent, however, is Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA).  While
bi-partisanship was to be the name of the game, Markey pulled
out at the last  moment over cable rate deregulation provisions. 



The House bill introduces competition in much the same way as
the Senate bill, with checklist of criteria.  It is also similar
in offering relief from the Rate of Return regulation though it
would wait 3 years to take effect.  The Senate bill would change
this immediately. 



Universal Service 

The much discussed concept of universal service will be placed
in the hands of a joint Federal-State Board under the auspices
of the FCC.  Within 9 months it will submit recommendations to
the FCC and State commissions.  These will advance the
principles of 1) just and reasonable rates; 2) promotion of
access to the advanced services and reasonably comparable
services for the general public in urban and rural areas, 3)
adequate and sustainable support mechanisms, 4) equitable and
nondiscriminatory contributions from all telecommunications
providers, and 5) educational access to advanced
telecommunications services. This board will have but one
consumer advocate - nominated by a national organization of
State utility consumer advocates.  The Telecommunications Policy
Roundtable - Northeast is advocating for a change that would
require one-third of the Joint Board members to "fully represent
the range of public societal concerns and interests including
education, health, and the general welfare of the nation."



Much like the Rockefeller, Snowe, Exon, Kerry Amendment to S
265, People for the American Way have proposed amended language
to HR 1555 that will "ensure end-to-end access at not higher
than incremental-cost based rates for elementary", secondary,
colleges, universities, public and nonprofit entities providing
community services.   An effort is underway to make Rep. Edward
Markey (D-MA) aware of our concern over this issue.  His fax
number is 202-225-8689.  His staff person on this issue is Colin
Crowell.  



Open Platform

The call for an open platform has been reissued by the
Taxpayer's Assets Program.  Advocating for the rapid deployment
of ISDN service, TAP, is looking for language to amend HR 1555
to require" a dominant local exchange carrier who provides ISDN
services to charge no more than the cost of voice grade service,
plus the incremental cost of the upgrade to ISDN."  It is
thought that this incremental cost would be around $10/month. 
In real terms, this would mean that the typical homeowner would
get a high speed digital connection more than able to deliver
the World Wide Web in all its glory, over existing wires - now-
for a slightly increased monthly charge.  Access to this kind of
bandwidth would encourage all kinds of entrepreneurial endeavors
and open the online world to many who can otherwise expect a
long wait.  The provision would end when determination is made
that competition exists in the local area.  



Local Franchises

HR 1555 prohibits local franchise agreements with
telecommunication providers.  In essence, this bars local
municipalities from receiving revenues for the use of their
public right-of-ways - allowing private use of a public good
without public reimbursement.  Currently, cable companies are
required to compensate a local municipality for their use of the
right-of-way.  These franchise agreements often result in public
access TV channels which allow the public access to the airwaves
in the local area.  This provision is widely opposed by the
nation's mayors.



HR - 994  The Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 1995

Regulatory reform is about to jump center stage and the Citizens
for Sensible Safeguards will see to it that we are kept well
informed.  HR 994 requires federal agencies to review their
regulations, do a cost/benefit analysis, and receive public
input on a regular basis.   The life cycle of current
regulations is 7 years and 3 years for those developed after
passage of the legislation.  While the goal of culling out
unnecessary regulation is great - this level of attention "would
take crucial time away from enforcement of vital federal
safeguards, clog our court system with unnecessary dilatory
lawsuits and undermine the relationship between the regulated
community..and federal regulators". It's been said that the bill
will essentially grind the regulatory process to a halt. CSS
post to res@rtk.net, 5/12/95



With every passing hour, there is more to report.  Many of these
bills go to markup this week.  Hopefully there will be good news
to report in the next issue.

[CNI Home Page]