[10347] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
RE: bill text draft 2: Telecommunications Competition Act (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Sterling)
Sat Feb 19 04:47:58 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 21:46:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeffrey Sterling <jeffgs@netcom.com>
To: rob horn <horn%temerity@leia.polaroid.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9401241452.AA02941@psi.com>
On 24 Jan 1994, rob horn wrote:
>
> There ought to be a part of Civcs 101 on writing laws and regulations. When
> you set out to do this consider two important environmental considerations:
The intent of the bill was to flush out the process of regulating vice
(typo) voice, video and data using the same guidelines at a statewide
level. Any wording to make this less ambiguous is appreciated.
> 1) 80% of the time your law will be interpreted and enforced by civil
> servants who don't care what your original intent was.
Introducing the concept of a CNAPs is intended to evoke a network access
point paradigm into the cable business so we are not stuck with 500
channels for the next 50 years.
> Those of you with experience writing specifications for software will
> understand. What you ask for is not often what was delivered, but when
> you go to check the specifications you find that they could also be
> interpreted to mean what was delivered. This is part of why laws are so
> often written in contorted mutant English. It is very hard work to write
> a clear specification in conventional English. (It is well worth the
> effort to try. This usually does wonders to improve the document.)
> 2) 10% of the time your law will be interpreted by your bitterest
> opponent. Forget it accomplishing your goals. Examine whether it can be
> twisted to do damage. It can. But how much damage will be done?
Please propose a method to encourage interconnection to telephone and
cable systems without threatening Internet.
> This draft fails both tests. It is littered with unintended consequences.
> In the hands of an Internet opponent I could use the interconnect and
> service clauses to close down almost anything.
>
> I personally think that none of these Universal Access efforts are
> necessary.
Cable industry intends to preclude access of newspapers, TV stations,
radio stations, community content providers, etc. I'm interested in
universal access for commercial content providers.
The trend over the past ten years is marvelous and in the
> right direction. Ten years ago a dial-up 9600 bps commercial email/ftp
> access to the Internet cost $25,000-$50,000/yr. Those are the then extent
> CSNET fees for a commercial user. Now it costs me $1/hr (or about
> $1,000/yr for heavy use). That's a 40-50% reduction per year.
Ethernet(10Mbs) to the home in 3 years is a minimum benchmark for me.
Thats an order of magnitude/yr or two 6mHZ cable channels.
> The cost problem is with the telco systems for reaching the service access
> points. And, oddly, these are the one part of the whole system that has
> been subject to heavy (overwhelming?) regulation and government control.
There are plenty of metrocom companies dying to string fiber. Why support
the old monopoly franchises?
Jeffrey Sterling
jeffgs@netcom.com
