[12271] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
re: NII and Reality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail))
Thu May 12 18:39:06 1994
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 07:35:32 PDT
From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <stahlman@radiomail.net>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
To: Steven=Byrne%CFP%BTCE@smtpgate.dotc.gov.au
>Mark:
>. . .
>
>The real issues are whether it is viewed as appropriate for Govt to take
>this role, and whether Govt can do the job better than the free and open
>play of market forces. In the PC industry, I think the answer is no: so
>far the free play of market forces in the PC industry has done a good job
>in fostering innovation, growth and American pre-eminence in the key
>technologies of this industry. But is the evolution of the PC industry a
>good model to apply to the future of communications?
>
>That's a hard one to answer - and I am open to views on this.
>
Steven:
I don't think this is a question of whether the FCC should close it's doors
tommorrow. Regulatory intervention (and even pro-active policy making)
have an important role in telecommunications for the principal reason that
it will never be an entirely open competitive business. While some aspects
of telecom are competitive and more will become open, wiring
everyone/everyplace is likely to remain a monopoly practice into the
distant future.
The point is that this regulatory role should be constantly minimized. It
should be self-limiting. It should remove restrictions as soon as is
practical. And that's precisely NOT what is happening with this
administration and their policy-intoxicated handmaidens.
EFF's Open Platform 2.0 is not a self-limiting proposal. In fact, it
proposes that a broad range of federal actions be taken to "shape" and
"cajol" future systems deployments. It proposes that a "new social
contract" be crafted that would directly interfere with both the form and
usage of future broadband networks. Out of (ostensible) concern over "an
even vaster wasteland", EFF has proposed that the cable industry be herded
into offering an "open platform." My point is that this effort is totally
wrong headed. And, it is because of the indefensibility of OP 2.0 and it's
"by-whatever-means-neccessary" attitude that EFF has refused to answer
questions about it's specific presciptions.
The Clinton administration seems to believe in extending governmental
intervention -- not limiting it. Al Gore has been lecturing about a
greatly expanded federal role in telecommunications for years -- since well
before he became VP -- under the name NII. EFF and everyone else (as far
as I can tell) who testifies and sits on committees is contributing to the
process of dramatically extending federal intervention into digtial
technologies -- NOT just monopoly telecommunications.
Clipper, Digtial Telephony, the mSoft anti-trust case, the NIIAC
Mega-projects, photo-ops at Silicon Graphics and EFF's OP 2.0 are all of
the same cloth. They all represent a sharp reversal of the previous
administration's hands-off (self-limiting) policies (actually, their record
isn't so attractive either). Why did EFF switch from being a grass-roots
cyber-liberties group to becoming Washington insiders? Was it the social
engineering opening presented by the Clinton election victory?
Industrial policy (as opposed to self-limiting regulatory efforts) is
always a failure in digital technology driven businesses -- as George
Gilder and others have so eloquently documented. The enterprenuers and
venture capitalists who are closest to the process can't figure out what
will work so asking a policy wonk to sort it out is inevitably hopelessly
destructive.
Al Gore's industrial policy for digital technology (i.e. the NII) is based
on a total fiction -- the "Super-Highway" and "Convergence" -- and, if
allowed to run it's course, could well lead to an "information entitlement"
bureaucracy and crippling regulation for everything that touches the
network. My advocacy is for reality first -- what is technically and
commercially feasible -- and self-limiting monopoly regulation second.
I fear that the network community has been hoodwinked about the probable
positive social benefits of Gore's planned invasion. Perhaps Gore has as
much of a chance of getting control over the NII as he had of federally
funding network construction (zero chance that is), but he won't be the
last to try. I'm passionate about joining with others to shine a bright
light into the dark corners where these parasites live.
P.S. Every industry driven by digital technology is completely different
from those which came before it. PCs are not a good detailed model for the
future. New media will take an entirely different form. But that's
another story.
Mark Stahlman
New Media Associates
New York
stahlman@radiomail.net
