Babble about universal service
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
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 thinking on this is, fine. Let them do it. It'll be like a python trying to eat a water buffalo. One which grows exponentially upon being eaten. To paraphrase Kipling, Kaa-blooie! :-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/
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 //
participants (3)
-
Declan McCullagh -
E. ALLEN SMITH -
Robert Hettinga