From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 15:36:10 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Babble about universal service
Message-ID: <01I807LCWIHW9JD2RG@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	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