From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 01:02:33 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: Babble about universal service
In-Reply-To: <01I807LCWIHW9JD2RG@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960808053450.29528B-100000@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I also wonder why universal service is such a Good Thing. It also, 
unfortunately, is on the agendas for the G-7-type meetings of information 
ministers from participating countries. http://www.eff.org/~declan/global/

(My objections to universal service are perhaps not surprising. It
devolves more power into the hands of the DC bureaucrats such as the FCC,
and provides a slippery slope on which we can slide down towards more and
more government regulation. By concentrating regulatory authority in the
Federal government, it also makes decisions more subsceptible to
special-interest lobbying and political patronage. But I recall Ronda has
been arguing for universal service for some time now, including on the
netizens mailing list.)

-Declan



On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

> 	I wish that people (like Phil Agre, who claims to be in favor of
> democracy on the Net) might get it through their heads that many - probably
> most - of those already on the Net have no desire to see every redneck on the
> planet on here, much less pay for the privilege of their being able to send
> inane messages to us.
> 	-Allen
> 
> From:	IN%"rre@weber.ucsd.edu" 17-JUL-1996 23:08:46.62
> From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
> Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below.
> You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
> the "redirect" command.  For information on RRE, including instructions
> for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to  rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> Date: 2 Jul 1996 17:03:29 GMT
> From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben)
> Organization: Columbia University
> 
> 
> Report 1
> 
> I just returned from a fascinating week in Montreal, Canada where I
> attended the INET '96 conference held by the Internet Society. I will
> try to write some reports about what happened at the Conference in the
> next week or two as it would be good to have the online community
> discuss some of the issues that were raised at the Conference.
> 
> What became clear at the conference was that this is an important 
> time in the development of the Internet. People from around the 
> world attended the conference and most expressed the desire that
> the Internet be made available in their countries for education
> and scientific and other uses. Some of the focus of the conference
> was on business uses of the Internet, but it seemed that there was
> a great concern among the people I spoke to that the Internet be
> available for educational and scientific and government and 
> community purposes, not just for business uses.
> 
> I want to start this report however, with the last talk that was
> given at the conference. The final talk was to be given by Reed Hunt
> of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. He didn't attend
> however, and instead the talk was given by Blair Levin, Chief of 
> Staff at the FCC instea.
> 
> A version of the talk is available at the FCC www site. 
> 
> The talk was a surprise as it seemed uninformed both about the 
> history and importance of the Internet and of the important public
> policy considerations that need to be taken into account when making
> any rules for regulating the Internet. 
> 
> At the beginning of the talk, there was the statement that Reed Hunt
> was the first FCC Chairman to have a computer on his desk, but that 
> he asked his staff to explain how the Internet works. So instead
> of a commitment to learn about how the Internet developed and the 
> significant impact it is having on the world, the speech presented
> us with the glib "the Internet gives us the opportunity to change
> all our communications policies."
> 
> The problem with this is that the FCC is therefore starting from
> scratch, throwing out all the lessons that have helped the Internet
> to grow and develop, and instead, creating its own models.
> 
> In his talk Blair Levin listed five principles. They were:
> 
> 1) How can public policy promote expansion of band width?
> 2) What rules can we get rid of or have?
> 3) The concern with pricing.
> 4) How to make sure it reaches everyone, especially kids in schools.
> 5) How to make sure it reaches across the globe.
> 
> The problem with this was that it took universal service as the 4th
> point, and then basically substituted access by kids in schools for
> the principle of universal service.
> 
> During the talk Blair described how the NTIA (the National
> Telecommunications Information Administration) had submitted an
> important paper to the FCC on the issue of voice over the Internet.
> 
> This made clear that the NTIA has not submitted any paper to the FCC
> on the issue of universal service, despite the fact that they held an
> online hearing on several issues, including universal service and the
> Internet, in November 1994 and the NTIA has done nothing to act on the
> broad expression of sentiment for universal service that was expressed
> during that online public meeting.
> 
> When asked about that online meeting, Blair said that the FCC knew of
> the meeting. However, it seems to have had no effect on their
> deliberations, or on the request of people that the FCC open up their
> decision making process so that the people who are being affected by
> their decisions have a means of providing input into those decisions.
> 
> In response to a question about the need for universal service Blair
> responded that that was the obligation of other branches of the
> U.S. government like the Department of Education.
> 
> He said this despite the fact that at the current moment the FCC is
> supposedly making rules to provide for the universal service
> provisions of the Telecommunications Act passed by the U.S. Congress
> in Feb. 1996.
> 
> Also, he claimed to welcome submissions into their process, but when
> told that it would cost over $50 to pay postage costs for a submission
> since there were over 35 people who had to be served (and postage on a
> minimal submission was $1.45), he said to see Kevin Werbach a lawyer
> at the FCC, who had come with him. Kevin Werbach offered no means of
> dealing with the high cost of making a submission.
> 
> Many people at the Internet Society Conference applauded in response
> to the question about the lack of concern by the FCC for the principle
> of universal service to the Internet. At the Internet Society
> conference many people spoke up about the need in their countries,
> whether that be Canada, or Norway, or Ghana, etc. for the Net to be
> more widespread and available to the public for educational and
> community purposes. Many were concerned about the lack of ability of
> the so called "market forces" to provide networking access to other
> than corporate or well to do users. Yet here was a talk being given in
> the name of the Chairman of the regulatory body in the U.S. charged
> with making the rules to provide for universal service, and the talk
> was unconcerned with the important issues and problems that issue of
> providing universal service to the Internet raises.
> 
> It is unfortunate that Reed Hunt didn't come to the conference and
> take the challenge to learn what the real concerns of people around
> the world are with regard to access to the Internet. Isolated in
> Washington, with no access to him possible for most people (though
> someone from one company told me that he was told to send him email
> whenever he had a concern), it seems difficult for the rules process
> to be able to produce any helpful outcome. There need to be open
> meetings and sessions where people who are concerned with these issues
> are invited to be heard and to discuss these issues with the
> FCC. Instead the process is going on behind the same closed doors that
> the crafting of the Telecommunications Act was created by the
> U.S. Congress.
> 
> It is a tribute to the Internet Society that they did make an effort
> to invite government officials like Reed Hunt to the conference.
> 
> The FCC will be setting an example for the rest of the world by the
> telecommunications policy rules it creates. Will the policy be one
> that recognizes that the so called "market" cannot provide the free or
> low cost access to the Internet that is necessary to make such
> universal service a reality? Will the rules created be based on
> looking back at how time sharing and the the ARPANET and the Internet
> developed so it can build on those lessons?  To have those rules be
> based on firm lessons from the past and firm principles that can make
> them fruitful, it is necessary that the FCC process creating those
> rules be much more open than it is at present. If the FCC could learn
> from the experience of the Internet and set up newsgroups and real
> email access to the officials involved that would demonstrate a
> commitment to a more equitable access to the Internet and to the fcc
> rulemaking that is needed to make the Internet available to all. But
> from the recent talk by the FCC official presented at INET '96, there
> seems little indication that the need for an open process and a many
> to many means of communication is recognized among those at the FCC
> and thus there is even less evidence that the FCC is capable of making
> rules to apply the principle of universal service to make Internet
> access available to all.
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Hauben 			Teachers College Dept. of Communication
> Amateur Computerist Newsletter  http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/acn/
> WWW Music Index			http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/music/
> Netizens Netbook                http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
>  Netizens Cyberstop
> 


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //