roundtable: Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555

roundtable: Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555

Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555

W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Fri, 26 May 95 09:28:34 EDT 

Message-Id: <9505261329.AA10966@a.cni.org>
Date:         Fri, 26 May 95 09:28:34 EDT
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      Lack of Public Interest Protection in H.R. 1555
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>


OVERHAUL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW OK'D


May 26, 1995
CITS Observations on attached article:
W. Curtiss Priest

As with the Commerce Subcommitte on Telecommunications and Finance,
the meeting of the full House Commerce Committee appeared to be
no opportunity for public interest groups to bring emerging
concerns about communications and cyberspace to the attention of
Congress.

In our analysis, we see a fundamental problem that results from
the perpetuation of considering such bills under the title of
"Commerce."

The public interest concerns are not about commerce, but about
education, libraries, and relationships among people.

We have witnessed the same problem with placing TIIAP in the
Department of Commerce.  Again, because NTIA had a long standing
legacy in this area, it became their role to implement community
technology initiatives.  But many question the wisdom that people
steeped in "commerce" can bring to what is essentially non-commercial
interests that might better be handled in the Department of
Health and Human Services. (We note that it is the Department of
Commerce slated for abolishment, not the Department of Health and
Human Services!)

The Consumer Federation of America chose to make this a futile
fight about rate regulation.  We believe this lobbying misled
Rep. Markey from areas that were more fundamentally important to
the public interest, including reshaping the Joint Federal-State
Board, providing specific language to fund education and community
uses of new telecommunications, and strengthening the bill's
stand regarding cross-ownership.  With the availability of Direct
Satellite Broadcasting (DSB) that has appeared since the cable
regulation bill of 1992, we do not share the concerns about
rate regulation, at least from the standpoint of broadcasted material.

Some of us were led to believe by congressional staff, that there
would be ample time to help improve the bill once it emerged from 
closed door revisions in the last month.

In contrast, we witness a steamroller, knee-jerk impetus to
pass the bill to achieve further deregulation.  While we are in
favor of deregulation, for its economic benefits to society, we
find many important safeguards for the social interests of society
seriously lacking in the current bill.

On the administration side, some of the stated goals of the 
administration are not sufficiently addressed:

    1.  The NII should be many-to-many (not one-to-many)
    2.  The NII should support a wide variety of applications (and not
	permit just, say, video applications)
    3.  The NII should lower barriers to publishing (working against
	having 'few providers')
    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 (it should not, not be
	extensible)
	(MIT Communications Forum 4:15PM, April 27th, 1995)

The current bill does not address "bandwidth symmetry" (Goal 1) and
because of economies of scale and scope (i.e. inherent monopoly aspects
to the production and dissemination of information) the bill is
seriously inadequate in protecting against cross-ownership and goal
number 3 is not met.

We suggest that the Whitehouse oppose the bill until sufficient
language is provided to meet Goals 1 and 3.

Further, while there is language in the bill to provide for
interoperability (working toward Goals 2 and 5), there is the danger
that forces including Microsoft will succeed in striking interoperability
language from the final Senate/House bill.  This must not be permitted.

**************************************************************************
NOTICE: Contains copyrighted material, do not redistribute unless you
abide to the copyright notice appearing at the end of this article.

As provided for under Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Law, the
following piece is being distributed for non-profit purposes and for
comment, criticism, and teaching.  In cases where the purpose of
conveying information is to fully inform the reader, the entire body of
the work is reproduced.

Should you wish to convey this material, in the same spirit, you are
free to do so.

****************************Advertisement********************************
Subscriptions to the Boston Globe can be received by calling 617-929-2000
****************************Advertisement********************************
Overhaul of telecommunications law OK'd
Bv Jeannine Aversa
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINCTON - A House panel re-
jected efforts yesterday to protect consum-
ers from potential increases in cable TV
rates as lawmakers sent to the House floor
the most far-reaching reform of telecom-
munications law in 61 years.

The House Commerce Committee scut-
tled a plan by Rep. Edward Markey (D-
Mass.), architect of a 1992 law regulating
cable rates, to temper parts of the hill that
would dismantle rate hike protections.

Later, on a vote of 38-5, the panel ap-
proved the bill. Backers say the measure
will benefit consumers by increasing com-
petition, which they contend will lead to
lower prices and greater choices in pro-
ducts and services. Opponents say the bill
bill lead to higher prices.

Besides rejecting Markey's amend-
ment, the panel:

o Approved a measure to retain limits
on foreign ownership of broadcast firms

o but remove the curbs for telecommunica-
tions firms if other countries removed
their restrictions on US companies.

o Approved a plan lifting limits on the
number of TV and radio stations one com-
pany may own nationally and remov-
ing a host of cross-ownership restric-
tions.

Markey's amendment, which was
ejected 32-14, would have permitted
able rates at all but small systems
to be deregulated only when another
competitor with "comparable video
programming" was authorized to
compete against the local cable com-
pany.

Under the bill, small systems
would be deregulated immediately
and larger systems would be deregu-
lated within 15 months - even if they
don't compete against another sys-
tem.

Markey's plan also would have
considerably reduced the number of
small systems eligible for immediate
rate deregulation.

"Rates will go up," Markey pre-
dicted.

And Bradley Stillman, legislative
director of the Consumer Federation
of America, declared: "This is a hor-
rible bill. Consumers will be ripped
off."

But supporters of rate deregula-
tion disagreed, saying competition is
the best way to keep customers'
rates down.

"This is not an amendment about
the future," Rep. Dan Schaefer, R-
Colo., author of the deregulation
provision, said of Markey's plan. It is
"a last-ditch effort to keep in place a
failed system" that "as no place in
the telecommunications world of the
future, he said.

Decker Anstrom, president of
the National Cable Television Asso-
ciation, said deregulation should help
cable companies obtain capital to im-
prove television and provide local
phone service.

***************************************************

Copyright Notice:  This article is protected under copyright law.
The right to disseminate this article is also protected under copyright
law (Section 107, 1976 Act).

The copyright law permits copying of materials for comment, criticism
and nonprofit purposes under the protection of fair use.

The copyright law also permits the copying of recent materials for the
"teachable moment."  This allows copying, in full, for educational
purposes.

Also, the courts generally interpret copyright protection by economic
criteria.  If the copying of a material reduces revenues to the
copyright holder, the court usually decides in favor of the plaintiff;
if the copying doesn't effect or increases the revenues, the court
usually decides on behalf of the defendent.

It is our judgment that occasional copying of a newspaper article does
not reduce revenues to the publisher and can actually create more
demand for a newspaper by attracting readership.  An excerpt provides free
advertising for the publisher.

Thus, under fair use, teachable moment, and economic criteria we
selectively convey this copyrighted material to others.

******************************************************

_______________________________________________________________________________
|           W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D., Director       *********************** |
|      Center for Information, Technology, & Society *  Improving humanity * |
|                                                    *  through technology * |
|                  466 Pleasant Street               *********************** |
|                Melrose, MA  02176-4522         BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU       |
|                  Voice: 617-662-4044  Gopher or WWW to our publications:   |
|   Fax: 617-662-6882      gopher.eff.org (under similar organizations, CITS |
| WWW: http://www.eff.org, under Documents & File Archives, under Gopher     |
_____________________________________________________________________________|

[CNI Home Page]