roundtable: Re: HR 1555...what's really happening!!

roundtable: Re: HR 1555...what's really happening!!

Re: HR 1555...what's really happening!!

W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Thu, 01 Jun 95 06:20:16 EDT 

Message-Id: <9506011033.AA20929@a.cni.org>
Date:         Thu, 01 Jun 95 06:20:16 EDT
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      Re: HR 1555...what's really happening!!
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Wed, 31 May 1995 22:31:13 -0800


>former Lt. Governor of Alaska and serving on a telecommunications task
>force for Alaska ...
>What are the people in the know saying about the telecommunication reg ...
>our concern is *RURAL* ....


It is doubtful that any one person on the Commerce committee or
subcommittee fully comprehends what HR 1555 is about.  This is not 
because they haven't done their homework, it is more because the 
parts of the bill addressing public issues like rural service are 
fuzzy, at best.

In short, it is a bill that Markey and Fields put together last year, 
that has been hacked and pruned by a Republican dominated process.

The result is that interest groups, what few there are to understand
the implications of all this, have tried desperately to maintain
pieces of the language to address P.E.G. access, disabilities, and
universal service.

P.E.G. access is still intact as are some disability requirements.

But, in your area of interest, there is little provision for
universal service and, therefore, little opportunity to serve
the rural communities.

The part of the bill relevant to your interests is the "Joint Federal-
State board" that is to be formed and provide guidance to the FCC.

If you go to the original 1934 language, the board is to be comprised
of a member from each PUC for an affected issue.  I have been told
by committee staff and by Jamie Love (Taxpayers Assets Project) that
in recent years, boards have been typically 6 people -- 2 federal
and 4 state.  That is not my reading of the original language, which
I see calling for, at least, 50 state members (there can actually be
more than 1 member appointed from each state).

Language in 1555 directs the board to provide recommend to the FCC
ways to provide comparable rates between urban and rural areas.  This
is your 'hook.'

HR 1555 also provides for one national public interest advocate for 
the board.  (this is either one of six or one of fifty something, we 
are not sure).  (We have recommended that this language be changed to
provide for 1/3rd of the board to be comprised of national public
interest advocates.)

So, as a predominantly rural state, you have to ask yourself what
kind of 'shake' will such a board give you, when providing more rural
service for you will mean greater charges in urban areas?

I think you get the drift of this pro-competition bill.

Regards, Curtiss

_______________________________________________________________________________
|           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]