roundtable: Telecom Post #2
roundtable: Telecom Post #2
Telecom Post #2
CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
Wed, 24 May 1995 22:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 22:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
Subject: Telecom Post #2
To: roundtable@cni.org
Message-Id: <01HQWBKZXE42005GIX@bentley.edu>
please cross-post and distribute
################ #############
################ ## #
## #############
## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ###
## # # # # # # # # ## # # # #
## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### #
## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # #
## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### #
==============================================================
Free Speech Media, LLC
May 24, 1995
Number 2 - 5 pages
==============================================================
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 works on the first comprehensive rewrite of our
telecommunication reality since the Communication Act of 1934.
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.
=========================================
TOPICS
Privacy Concerns
1. The Exon Amendment spreads to states
2. Support for Leahy substitute to the Exon Amendment
3. Digital Telephony enjoys renewed momentum
4. The Clipper Chip returns
Universal Service - what does that mean?
H.R. 1555 amendments and provisions
The Administration comment on H.R. 1555
==================================================================
Privacy concerns take center stage this week as every fear of
privacy advocates, past and present, seem to have appeared with
full forward motion.
Censorship
Though the Exon Amendment, officially known as the
"Communications Decency Act of 1995", was originally sponsored
by Senator Exon (D-NE) as a separate bill and is now an
amendment to the major Senate telecommunications bill, S652, the
"Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995".
Though the national legislation has been widely publicized and
discredited by the public, many of its measures are reappearing
in state legislation. The original bill was spawned out of the
fear that pedophiles, child pornographers, and other obscenities
found free reign on the net. The first version held online
providers and telecommunications carriers liable for any
material fitting that description traveling over their wires.
This would have compelled providers to monitor all transmissions
over their wires in order to censor offensive material. The
outcry from civil libertarians and widespread publicity served
to convince legislators to change the liability to apply to
those transmitting content deemed "obscene, lewd, lascivious,
filthy, or indecent". The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
has found that at least thirteen states have proposed similar
legislation, some of which would enact the *original* provision
of holding the provider responsible. States considering this
legislation are Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. Concerned citizens are
urged to contact your state legislators and urge their
opposition to these bills.
Meanwhile, the Senate Communications Decency Act is due to come
to a vote within three weeks. As written, this act would
criminalize private communication among adults judged to fall
into these categories and pro-censorship groups are working to
increase its restrictions. This act threatens the nature of the
net as we know it and raises serious constitutional questions.
Senator Leahy has proposed S. 714 as a substitute for the Exon
Amendment. He proposes the Department of Justice and the
Department of Commerce to undertake a 5 month study on the use
of technological capabilities in filtering offensive material from
the eyes of children - taking a preventative not punitive
approach to the problem. Voters Telecommunications Watch is
circulating an electronic petition in support of Senator Leahy's
bill. Instructions on signing this petition will be spelled out
in a follow-up post with the subject header "Telecom Post Action
Items".
Wiretapping - Digital Telephony
Last year Congress passed legislation (the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994) that would force
telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment to make it easy to wiretap the
nation's communication system. With the advent of digital
communications, the FBI is afraid it will no longer be able to
intercept phone calls and wants industry to insure that calls
and their identifying information can be isolated and delivered
to a remote government monitoring location without disclosure.
The cost of building this capability is to be subsidized by the
government with $100 million a year for five years. Once in
place, wiretapping capability would be much easier to accomplish
than is now the case.
Both the telecommunications industry and civil libertarians
strongly opposed this measure but the bill passed anyway. The
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) found that,
historically, the conviction rate from wiretaps does not warrant
this kind of industry strong-arming. They initiated a campaign
this year to block the first round of funding by the Senate
Appropriations subcommittee. In order to get by the recision
mentality of this year's Congress, the Office of Management and
Budge recommended increasing civil fines rather than initiating
a new appropriations.
In the wake of the Oklahoma City incident, however, it now looks
like funding of the digital telephony legislation will proceed.
Both the subcommittee's chairman, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) and
ranking Democrat, Senator. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) feel the FBI
will have no trouble finding funding. Opponents to this measure
are urged to notify members of the subcommittee. Names and
contact numbers of these members will be listed in a separate
post with the subject "Telecom Post Action Items".
Clipper Chip
Two years ago the President initiated a proposal to require the
use of the Clipper Chip for all encryption. The algorithm used
in the Clipper Chip was developed by the National Security
Agency and unlike other widely used encryption algorithms, kept
secret. The key in each chip would be kept in escrow (key
escrow) by the Treasury Department and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). With a court order, these keys
would be put together to decipher encrypted messages. The
proposal met with huge resistance from both industry and the
public. It was then revised to be adopted on a voluntary basis.
Since then the Clipper proposal lost most of its momentum with
regard to voice communications. However, it may be resurfacing
with regard to data services. FBI Director, Louis Freeh has
begun making statements regarding the need for "strong
encryption" and privacy advocates fear that this is the
beginning of a move to establish the Clipper standard as
mandatory rather than voluntary. Should this become a formal
initiative, it is sure to meet with strong public resistance and
bears close watch by all concerned.
HR 1555 - The Telecommunications Act of 1995
HR 1555 flew through the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Commerce with a vote of 24-5. The full
House Commerce Committee is conducting its markup of HR 1555 as
we speak. They started today, May 24. Faxes, phone calls, and
other forms of arm twisting can still be effective so please do
not hesitate to let your views be known. A list of the Commerce
Committee members is in the follow-up post, "Telecom Post Action
Items".
Universal Service
The Alliance for Public Technology defines universal service as
insuring "equitable and affordable access not just to plain old
telephone service (POTS) but to advanced communications
technology as well." If we are now building a National
Information Infrastructure in the same spirit as our public
highways, health services, and education, then it should be seen
as an investment in our common good. This cannot always be
determined by the free market. The Senate counterpart to HR
1555, S652, "The Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation
Act of 1995" clearly spells out the national policy goals it
attempts to achieve. Section 4(1) contains language that
promotes and encourages advanced telecommunications networks,
capable of enabling users to originate and receive affordable,
high-quality voice, data, image, graphic, and video
telecommunications services. In order to achieve this kind of
infrastructure we must view the NII as a public investment and
construct policy guidelines that insure access to the vast
potential of this technology is diffused in a fair and equitable
manner. HR 1555 states no national policy goals leaving the
definition of universal service up to a joint board to determine.
The most urgent issue of concern is the "Cox Amendment".
Sponsored by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), this amendment would
limit the universal service considerations to voice grade
telephone service. In essence, it would freeze our National
Information Infrastructure concept at the 1934 level of
technology. Universal service is currently defined in the bill
as "access to advanced telecommunications services and
capabilities". A universal service fund is established to
support universal service goals and is to be funded by all
telecommunications providers. Decisions on those goals and
expenditures will be made by a joint board of federal and state
regulators, and a state consumer advocate. The Cox amendment
would limit this support to phone service and lead to higher
tariffs on any more advanced services. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA)
objects to this amendment but it is thought that Rep. Thomas
Bliley (R-VA), chairman of the committee supports it. Your
voice could make the difference, particularly if your rep is on
the Committee.
Interoperability
The concept of interoperability directly affects the level of
competition that will be possible in the future. To the degree
that systems are open, third parties can enter the market with
new products to enhance and compete with existing products. To
the degree that systems are closed, their functionality and
product offerings come from limited sources. HR 1555 provides
for interoperabilty in network functionality with the language"
procedures .... for the effective and efficient interconnection
and interoperability of public an private networks," and for the
oversight of "appropriate industry standards-setting
organizations," addressing "standard for the interconnection and
interoperability of such networks."
Two groups have formed for and against this language.
Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Novell, IBM and others oppose the term
interoperability claiming that it would justify the taking of
their intellectual property. Sun Microsystems, Oracle, America
Online, Viacom, and others feel that interoperability would
serve to enhance the competitive environment and assure
reasonable and justifiable rates. If you are interested in
pursuing this issue, contact Brian Moir of the International
Communications Association, 0002906212@mcimail.com, or a member
of the House Commerce Committee.
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) has proposed an amendment that would
delay cable rate deregulation of large companies until such time
that comparable video programming is in a competitive capacity.
Right now the legislation deregulates small cable companies
immediately and large ones 15 months the passage of the bill.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) has proposed an amendment that would
lift restrictions on cable, local and long-distance companies from
entering each other's business and lift limits on the
number of TV and radio stations one company can own.
The White House has weighed in with a list of concerns about HR
1555 that parallel many the public interest sector has put forth.
1. Echoing Rep. Markey's concerns over cable rate regulation,
the White House fears that lifting constraints before real
competition is achieved will adversely affect consumers through
higher rates.
2. While the bill includes provisions that will control
cross-ownership buyouts of cable companies by phone companies,
it allows broad exceptions which might allow such buyouts in
areas where competition between the two could, realistically
exist.
3. Though telephone companies must offer access to video
programming through a video platform on "just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory terms", in order to prevent a "gatekeeper"
function on the part of telcos and cable companies, exceptions
included in the bill might prevent the full potential of
unaffiliated programmers to have ample opportunities to market
services directly to subscribers.
4. The checklist that determines when adequate competition
exists in the local market in order to allow Bell Operating
Companies to enter the long-distance market is not adequate.
The White House feels that the Department of Justice should play
a role in that determination.
5. Local Competition/Interconnection requirements are not
sufficient. Terms that are meant to open the local loop are
vague and, without Department of Justice oversight, might not be
sufficient to insure effective local competition. Number
portability when switching carriers is not required. "[T]he
bill's qualification on the obligation to interconnect could
provide monopolists with undue leverage to refuse technically
reasonable interconnection in the negotiations provided.."
"Rate of return" regulation is prohibited to states for any
carrier that has complied with the access and interconnection
requirements. This not only preempts state authority, it may
adversely affect the consumer.
6. Foreign ownership restrictions on broadcast and common
carrier licenses is unilaterally lifted. The Administration
feels that certain restrictions should be imposed and that the
Executive Branch should be involved in the sales determination.
7. With broadcast ownership restrictions relaxed, local and
national ownership concentration might impede competition and
diversity of voices by allowing owners to concentrate control
over the finite broadcast capacity.
8. No explicit goal of universal service is stated.
![[CNI Home Page]](/Images/home.gif)