From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 08:03:01 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Rep. White introduces Internet Protection Act
Message-ID: <v0300780ab00583765cb0@[168.161.105.191]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I admit I'm jaded after spending too much time -- which
in my case, is about three years -- in Washington.
I've seen too much special interest lobbying, too many
soft money favors, and (of course) a veritable slew of
unconstitutional legislation.

But sometimes a bill comes along that warms my heart.
It happened today, when Rep. Rick White (R-Wash)
introduced the Internet Protection Act to block the
FCC from regulating the Net. (Though I recall it's
been watered-down from the one he tried to pass last
year: http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/40/index1a.html )
Joining White in introducing the bill was the chair of
the House Telecom Subcommittee, Billy Tauzin (R-LA).

It stresses that industry, not government, should grow
the Net. Besides barring the FCC from regulating
Internet providers, the bill also amends the
Telecommunications Act to let the agency back away from
offline regulation if a comparable service exists
online.

This is important. After all, the FCC's charter gives
it jurisdiction over all electronic communications --
though the commission has opted not to exercise its
authority in cyberspace. A 1980 FCC directive dubbed
"Computer II" said the commission would regulate only
"basic" telephone services, not providers of "enhanced
services." That marked a reprieve for the Net, for the
"enhanced service provider" category includes
everything from voice mail service to alarm monitoring
firms to Internet providers. (That's why we don't pay
per-minute charges to log on today, much to the
chagrin of Bell Atlantic's lobbyists -- who tried in
1983 and 1996 to pass such a rule and met with a
crushing defeat each time.) Still, White's bill is
crucial since future commissioners may not display
this laudable regulatory forbearance.

Bob Corn-Revere, former FCC chief counsel, echoes this
in his recent book called "Rationales &
Rationalizations." He says: "The culture of regulation
already is marshaling its forces for a multi-faceted
assault on Internet freedom." After all, key
legislators like Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich) and Rep.
Edward Markey (D-Mass) have opposed legislation that
would exempt the Net from FCC content regulation.
Markey has said the Net should be regulated the
same way as other media, and Dingell wants to protect
the FCC's ability to "apply local [cable television]
franchising requirements to the Internet." Let's not
even talk about what the religious right would like
to do...

"Regardless of ideological differences between
liberals and conservatives, however, there really is
only one wish -- to control the medium," Corn-Revere
concludes. And he's right.

-Declan

An excerpt from the Internet Protection Act:

"LIMITATIONS ON COMMISSION AUTHORITY -- Except as
expressly provided in this section, noting in this Act
shall be construed to grant authority to the
Commission with respect to --

(A) the rates, charges, practices, classifications,
facilities, or services for or in connection with the
provision of Internet information services to
customers;

(B) technical specifications or standards for the
provision of Internet information services; or

(C) any other regulation of the provision of Internet
information services"



-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/