roundtable: INET'95 panel notes

roundtable: INET'95 panel notes

INET'95 panel notes

Sean McLaughlin (seanm@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu)
Mon, 3 Jul 1995 10:13:50 -1000 

Date: 	Mon, 3 Jul 1995 10:13:50 -1000
From: Sean McLaughlin <seanm@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
To: Roundtable <roundtable@cni.org>
Subject: INET'95 panel notes
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950703100936.26524D-100000@uhunix2>


INET'95, the Internet Society's annual gathering was in Honolulu last 
week 28-30 June.  Here are some notes from a panel on "Public Interest 
Regulation" that might be of interest to telecomreggers, alliance for 
community media, and roundtable folks, so this is cross-posted with 
apologies.  
 

June 29, 1995  
Around 1500 folks at the Sheraton Waikiki for INET'95, the air abuzz 
with limitless opportunity, boom time projections, commercial 
opportunities, impressive high tech demonstrations, cutting edge 
applications and developments in software, networking and technology, 
and enthusiastic discussions of censorship and privacy.

The local organizers, University of Hawaii folks, working with GTE 
Hawaiian Tel and Oceanic Cable/Time Warner did a fantastic job.  There 
were well over a hundred high speed ethernet connected workstations all 
over the place (four T1 lines).  BTW, heard that the Time Warner lines 
were much more reliable than GTE's.  

At a panel on "Public Interest Regulation," moderated by Sean McLaughlin 
of Ikaika Media, a range of issues was discussed.  The focus was on 
convergence of broadcast, cable TV, telco, and wireless technologies.  
What is the appropriate role of regulation by federal, state, and local 
governments to serve the public interest?

U.S. Senator Inouye's representative, Jennifer Goto-Sabas provided an 
update on current status of federal telecom legislation.  Trend now 
being against local jurisdictions, public rights-of-way, and consumer 
safeguards, in favor of free market competition.  

When asked by an audience member about the Exon censorship amendment, 
she indicated opposition to such an unconstitutional provision, that 
it's a political hot potato and difficult to vote against protecting 
children from porno, and that the strategy is to scratch it in conference 
committee with the House.  

Carol Fukunaga, Hawaii State Senator and member of the U.S. NII Advisory 
Council, gave an enthusiastic appeal for public rights of way and 
advanced telecom services for schools and libraries.  She also
described provisions in new Hawaii telecom law (HB471) that was signed 
that same morning (June 29th) by Gov. Cayetano.  Lots of discussion about 
universal service and making high bandwidth available to rural areas.  
The concept of providing advanced access at libraries and community 
centers was promoted as an interim solution for high cost areas.  
'Cost-based' prices are otherwise mandated in Hawaii for advanced 
telecom services.   

Yukio Naito, Chairman of the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission described 
the ongoing communications infrastructure docket, and the regulatory push 
to open competition in the market.  He put a decent consumer protection 
spin on the regulatory world view.  Audience members asked how internet 
providers would be effected by cable TV entry into telecomm market. 
(Time Warner announced at the conference that they would provide high 
speed internet connections at substantially discounted prices in the 
coming year.)  Naito indicated concern for anti-competitive behavior, 
and noted that the PUC does not have regulatory authority over cable 
TV operators.    

Sybil Boutilier, director of the CityLink/BRIDGE community networking 
project in San Francisco, did her homework and had good numbers and 
current information on the public interest policy issues for local 
gov'ts and for cable access folks.  She provided insight into gathering 
and organizing all available resources, including information.  Dirk 
Koning's (Grand Rapids, MI) model for a "Community Media Center" was 
discussed and internet providers and programming service providers were 
encouraged to work with community media such as public television, 
cable access, libraries, schools, cities and counties, etc.   

Some interesting audience/participants...Steve Cisler with Apple, 
Richard Civille of the Center for Civic Networking, Hans Klein of 
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilty, Meheroo Jussawalla 
with the East-West Center, Barbara Kim Stanton of Hawaii's High 
Technology Development Corp., educators, internet service providers, etc.
  
The issue of federal preemption of state and local jurisdiction over 
telephone, cable TV, and wireless telecom was discussed in some detail.  
Panelists (and audience) appeared unanimous in the belief that local 
community participation is at the core of the public interest.  

One participant from Venezuela noted that telecom taxes and fees that 
were collected to advance infrastructure have been used for unrelated 
purposes, and this has led to a domino effect of telecom taxes at every 
level of gov't that harms the industry.

The question of a funding mechanism for universal service was debated, 
whether to provide for public benefits through industry specific taxes 
and fees, or to fund through existing tax structures (income, property, 
sales, etc.).

When discussion went to defining universal service and including internet
connectivity, internet providers asked if they would then be obliged to 
support universal service.  [Note: One current proposal in Hawaii is to 
fund universal service with a percentage of gross retail revenues from 
telecom providers (two-way).]    

One of the most enlightening comments was from Naito, in response to a 
proposal to fund public benefits with dedicated utility taxes, franchise 
fees and spectrum auction revenues...his thoughtful regulatory reply, 
"where does it all stop?"  

Those of us who have been asking where it all begins should take this
question seriously, as a major challenge facing noncommercial, public 
interest media.  


Aloha from INET'95

Sean McLaughlin
Honolulu, Hawai'i

[CNI Home Page]