[10451] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
WUTC NOI INTERNET SURVEYS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Berg)
Wed Feb 23 19:12:58 1994
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:43:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Larry Berg <nwsyslaw@netcom.com>
To: communet@uvm.uvm.edu, telecomreg@relay.adp.wisc.edu, com-priv@psi.com
LARRY BERG, LAWYER
4418 SW Massachusetts Street
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 933-6928
nwsyslaw@netcom.com
THANK YOU to all parties who responded to the Internet User and Internet
Access Provider Surveys which were posted in January. As previously
explained, the purpose of the surveys was to develop responses to issues
presently being considered by the Washington Utility and Transportation
Commission. Also as previously stated, I am posting the full text of
comments filed on behalf of the Internet and survey respondents. The
comments were addressed to Mr. Steve McLellan, Commission Secretary. Your
additional comments and critiques are welcome.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referred-to
Notice of Inquiry (NOI). The comments submitted to you herein have
been prepared to present perspectives regarding the NOI Focus
Questions on behalf of Internet, Internet users, and Internet access
providers. The Policy Staff discussion paper attached to the NOI
mentions Internet and the role of access providers in the emerging
telecommunications environment. [1] Internet, as a news topic or
point of reference, has recently experienced a major increase in
journalistic exposure. According to the Nexis on-line data base, in
June, July, and the first half of August 1993, major American
newspapers carried 173 stories mentioning the Internet, compared with
22 a year earlier. [2] Many of these stories contain a description
of the Internet and discuss its history. Nevertheless, I think that
it is valuable to consider the nature and development of Internet in
the context of this Inquiry. Accordingly, I have included written
comments for that purpose.
Although center stage of the regulatory arena is currently occupied by
parties seeking to enter the local exchange carrier (LEC) market and
local exchange carriers who are seeking to expand into competitive
service areas, individuals actively involved in the Internet believe
that Internet will continue to merge with mainstream lifestyles and
that access to information (the essence of Internet) will become a
primary component of universal service. For this reason and others
stated in the section entitled "Why Consider Internet", the potential
of the Internet should be given careful consideration in the course of
developing long term plans.
The up-to-now discrete yet ubiquitous nature of Internet is tempered
by the divisive nature of its participants. In order to make these
comments relevant and credible, I reframed several of the questions
for which the Commission is seeking focused responses and I posted
(distributed) two separate surveys on three different electronic-mail
(E-mail) list servers. These list servers are available by
subscription on Internet and are discussed in the "Surveys" section.
The first survey was directed at Internet users, and the full text of
the survey is attached hereto as Appendix A. This survey is not
intended to provide the Commission with a consensus report, and it is
uncertain whether such an objective could be achieved. The purpose of
the Internet user survey is to inform the Commission as to the range
of opinions held by that group. Although responses were submitted
from outside the Commission's jurisdiction, the LEC operational
environment remains consistent throughout the United States. The
second survey was directed at Internet access providers, and the full
text of that survey is attached hereto as Appendix B. Unlike the
user survey, responses were specifically solicited from private sector
Internet access providers within the State of Washington. The
confidential responses to these two surveys are separately reported
below.
Apart from the responses to survey questions regarding foreseeable
regulatory mechanisms, my background research included texts and
articles which addressed the issues of telecommunications regulation,
its impact on the Internet, and regulation of the Internet itself.
Relevant excerpts and references to this research are presented in the
sections entitled "Regulation" and "Internet as a Public Trust."
Insofar as there is no centralized Internet organization to represent,
I essentially represent the Internet users and access providers who
chose to participate in the surveys. I do not purport to represent
the entire range of Internet interests, however, I share an
underlying belief in the power of the Internet to transform and enrich
our lives. Most of the opinions expressed herein are assimilated from
other sources, and I will do my best to give credit where credit is
due.
HISTORY OF INTERNET
The complex technological, political, and social environment in which
the Internet presently operates had a rather unexpected genesis. Some
thirty years ago, the RAND Corporation, a well-known Cold War think-
tank, faced a strange strategic problem: how could U.S. authorities
successfully communicate after a nuclear war? [3] According to author
Bruce Sterling, postnuclear America would need a command-and-control
network, linked from city to city, state to state, base to base. The
switches and wiring of any network, as known at that time, would
always be vulnerable to damage in an explosion. Furthermore, any
central network authority would be an obvious and immediate target.
Sterling reports that RAND conceived of a daring solution. The RAND
proposal (credited to RAND staffer Paul Baran) was made public in
1964, and was based on a network that would "have no central
authority." Furthermore, it would be "designed from the beginning to
operate while in tatters." All of the nodes in the network would be
equal in status to all other nodes, each node with its own authority
to originate, pass, and receive messages. The messages themselves
would be divided into packets and each packet would be separately
addressed. Each packet would begin at some source node and end up at
some other specified destination node; however, each packet would
travel through the network on an individual basis. The packet would
pass from node to node until it ended up at the destination where the
message would be reassembled. If a part of the network was
destroyed, the packet would continue to travel along whatever portion
of the system which survived. Although this was a rather inefficient
delivery system when compared to the telephone system, it would be
extremely rugged.
The National Physical Laboratory in Great Britain set up the first
network based upon the RAND concept in 1968. Shortly afterwards, the
Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency decided to build a larger
project wherein the nodes of the network were to be high-speed
supercomputers. In fall 1969, the first node was installed at UCLA.
By December 1969, there were four nodes on the network which was
named ARPANET, after its Pentagon sponsor. In 1971 there were fifteen
nodes, and by 1972 there were thirty-seven nodes.
By the second year of operation ARPANET users began to utilize the
computer-sharing network for something other than R&D; the network
began to function as a dedicated, high-speed, federally subsidized
electronic post office. People had their own personal user accounts
on the ARPANET computers, and their own personal addresses for
electronic mail. Mailing lists were invented which permitted an
identical message to be automatically sent to large numbers of network
subscribers. The decentralized nature of ARPANET made expansion easy.
There are seven primary hierarchical levels of communication which are
recognized in systems engineering. The development of a standard
protocol software at the network level (format of individual data
packets) and the next level referred to as transport (delivery of
packet sequences) enabled a high degree of interconnection with
different computer equipment and networks. As early as 1977, TCP/IP
(Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) was being used by
other networks to link to Internet.
In 1984 the National Science Foundation began funding the development
of the Internet through its Office of Advanced Scientific Computing.
The network began being referred to as NSFNET as it was upgraded and
expanded in 1986, 1988, and 1990. The network is presently being
upgraded again. The upgrade is a five-year, $2 billion project which
is being referred to as the National Research and Education Network
(NREN).
The relationship between networks in the Internet is hierarchical. At
the top of hierarchy are the backbone networks, such as NSFNET (which
contends to be non-commercial) and CIX (which was ostensibly
established to handle commercial traffic). At the next level of the
hierarchy are the mid-level networks, which usually consist of a
leased-line backbone and provides connectivity to a particular region.
At the bottom of the hierarchy are networks which are located at
particular institutions. Each network in the hierarchy has certain
responsibilities to the connecting network at the next higher level of
the hierarchy. In particular, each network is responsible for
collecting information regarding what hosts are within its domain and
how to reach them. A domain indicates the type of computer
constituting a particular node: gov (government; mil (military); edu
(educational institution); com (commercial enterprises); org (non-
profit organization and net (computers that serve as gateways between
networks). At present, nearly 70 percent of all the registered domain
names are commercial organizations. [4] Networks under the
administrative control of a single institution can retain their
autonomy. An autonomous system must interface with a network at the
next level of the hierarchy, but all routing and host addressing
within the autonomous system is the responsibility of the
administrative authority that controls the network. [5]
The decentralized technical organization of the Internet is also
reflected in its administrative organization. The administrative
authority of each autonomous system is usually responsible for
obtaining its own funding and developing its own administrative
procedures. [6] There is no designated enforcement authority within
the hierarchy, however, there is a powerful peer pressure system that
influences inter-network relationships.
WHY CONSIDER INTERNET
Al Gore wrote about the importance of a ubiquitous high-capacity
network in Scientific American in September 1991. In that article he
states, "It used to be that a nation's transportation infrastructure
determined success in international economic competition... Today
transportation is less important compared to other factors, such as
the ability to move information and to increase the value of this
information." [7] The Internet now enables users to address E-mail to
the President and Vice President at:
president@whitehouse.gov; and
vice president@whitehouse.gov,
although all responses continue to be routed through the U.S. Postal
Service.
The Internet is the most powerful network on the planet simply because
it's the biggest. [8] In November 1990 the Internet was estimated at
approximately 5,000 networks serving more than 3 million users. [9]
In June 1991 Internet users were estimated to be 5 to 10 million
worldwide, and computer traffic on the network was increasing at a
rate of 20 percent every month. [10] The growth in electronic
messaging was assessed in a statement by Gordon Bridge, president of
AT&T Easylink in June 1992, "Last year [1991] 20 million E-mail users
sent 1.2 billion messages to each other." [11] In September 1993 the
Internet was estimated to encompass 1.3 million computers with
addresses that are used by up to 30 million people in more than 40
countries. The number of computers linked to the Internet doubled
every year between 1988 and 1992; in 1993 the rate of increase slowed
slightly to 80 percent. [12]
People and companies seeking access to places where telephones are
notoriously unreliable are turning increasingly to the services that
the Internet has to offer. [13] Mitchell Kapor, chairman of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, reports that "in Russia, during the
[1991] coup attempt, people were providing live reports on Russian
Internet about what was really going on." Tom Mandel, a futurist with
SRI International, also reports that "during Tianamen Square, students
were getting the news out and were fundraising through Internet." [14]
In the same way that the conversion of suburban little league baseball
diamonds to soccer fields signals the emergence of a new sporting
generation, generations of young Americans are being given access to
the Internet as a learning resource and they consider access to be
part of their daily environment. While many adults are struggling
with the need to retrain in order to become computer literate, the
convergence of technology is accompanied by the challenge to become
network literate. Unlike the long-distance phone system, Internet
transmission does not establish a private two-way switched circuit
between points. Packet switched networks reduce data transmission
overhead by attaching codes to each item of data sent through the
network. By identifying the source, destination, and sequence of each
packet, no end-to-end connection needs to be established. [15] As a
direct consequence of packet switching, data transmission is so cheap
that no consideration is given to the geographical location of the
source or the destination. Just as the postal systems of countries
agree to trade letters, member networks agree to exchange the modern
equivalent, electronic packets of digital information.
The World Bank has managed to quantify something that many people in
the computer and communication field have known for a long time -
that information networking is an inherently wealth-creating activity.
The World Bank managed to positively correlate telecommunication
capacity in certain countries with increases in GDP. [16] While in
many ares of computer and communication technology corporations enjoy
the most advanced state-of-the-art applications, when it comes to the
Internet, many are playing catch-up when contrasted against their
counterparts in the research and academic community. It is the
research and academic community that has traditionally understood the
collaborative dimensions of the Internet far better than the corporate
world. [17]
The Internet has been referred to as the promised land for amateur
anthropologists. There are, depending on how you count, between 2,500
and 6,000 newsgroups worldwide. [18] Each newsgroup is topical in
nature and enable Internet users to access and exchange information
with any number of similarly interested parties. The beauty of the
Internet is that it is a place where just about any interest can be
indulged and where any question can be answered if properly directed.
The number of groups is increasing by hundreds per year. The trend
of present expansion of the Internet's constituency - from scientists
to plebs - will continue and may accelerate. [19] The trend of
development towards mainstream culture is supported by the on-line
availability of popular publications, such as Time and Forbes
magazines, over the Internet.
Tom Valovic, Editor of Telecommunications, states three reasons why
the Internet is important in terms of communications infrastructure
for business, and thus, is important for consideration in this NOI.
First of all, the Internet exists and it works. The Internet itself
has become a means for influencing public policy. Secondly, being
competitive will increasingly mean information sharing. The Internet
is one way of getting important research out of the university
environment and into the hands of those who can apply that pure
research into capital ventures. Thirdly, it is the beginning of a
vehicle for new kinds of organizational relationships in what Valovic
refers to as the "virtual marketplace". These relationships will
revolve around a new dynamic of cooperation and competition, and will
allow new platforms for commercial enterprises to thrive. [20]
SURVEYS
The two surveys reported herein were posted on three separate E-mail
discussion group lists. These lists differ from bulletin boards
insofar as they must be subscribed to in order to participate and
messages are routinely distributed to each person on the list. The
three lists are:
* communet@uvmvm.uvm.edu (communications networks)
* telecomreg@relay.adp.wisc.edu (telecommunications
regulation)
* com-pri@psi.com (commercialization-privatization)
The range of responses received are discussed below on a question-by-
question basis.
INTERNET USER SURVEY
(1) What obstacles do monopoly LECs create to the development of and
access to Internet ?
Monopoly control by an LEC affects the introduction of new technology
into the network by its decision to deploy, as well as the decision
to tariff and how to tariff. Significant time is spent deciphering
tariffs and figuring out which combination of tariffs will be the most
economical for a given application. The elimination of tariffs would
not necessarily eliminate this problem, however, having well defined
tariffs for basic communications services would help make things more
predictable in the long run. One particular example offered states
that USWEST has been slow to deploy new technologies and in the case
of ISDN even slower to tariff them. This limits the dial-up options
for accessing the Internet to analog modems.
Internet access is represented to be the most difficult at the local
levels, and that LEC monopolies delay and inhibit the development of
local Internet connections. There is some consensus that regulated
monopolies develop internal strategies to actively conceal their
obstructive policies. There is also some consensus concern over LEC
requests for usage pricing. Using the Internet (or any other on-line
service) would be cost prohibitive without flat rate local service.
Logging on for hours at a time is totally incompatible with usage
pricing.
Various other obstacles noted are: the requirement to overcome the
analog local loop with every flat business line; the refusal of USWEST
to allow colocation of equipment which creates unnecessary back-haul
traffic to get to a customer supplier route; a lack of intermediate
bandwidth facilities (or tariffs) between DS0, DS1, and DS3; services
are not tailored for residential usage; artificially high transmission
pricing discourages Internet penetration to rural markets; and there
is no incentive to expand the scope of universal service.
(2) How can increased competition at the LEC level promote the
development of and access to Internet ?
Increased competition is perceived as a threat of usage pricing
becoming the norm. If cablephone and PCS are priced based on usage
there may be justification for allowing the telecos to base prices on
usage as well. Internet providers rely heavily on flat rate pricing
and the market expects it. If increased competition resulted in the
introduction of measured service Internet providers would be
discouraged from entering the market and providing a rich variety of
services. Increased competition at the local level may also undermine
the systems of averaging and subsidization that make flat rate pricing
feasible. While there is a strong preference for flat rate dialing,
the amount of the flat rate charge is important. Pacific Bell
charges $.01 per minute after the first minute while Atlantic Bell
charges $.05 per minute. This range of pricing makes a big
difference in the economics of an application.
On the plus side, increased competition promotes Internet: by
lowering the cost of entry through reduced circuit cost; by driving
broadband infrastructure development; and by driving the development
of applications that make the Internet user friendly (i.e. Internet
access on a high speed cable system).
There is a consensus that the LECs do not understand data.
Competition is expected to create niche providers who structure rates
and services to respond to the requirements of customers with
specialized needs.
(3) What infrastructure changes will promote the development of and
access to Internet ?
ISDN, Frame Relay, and ATM are services that will enhance the use of
Internet. Frame Relay is double the cost over ISDN. There is a
consensus that a wide availability of high-band circuits will benefit
the Internet. In the short run, Ethernet over cable is considered to
be promising.
Flat rate pricing for as many forms of "network transport" as possible
is reiterated. For instance, flat rate pricing for ISDN will cause a
ground swell in the market. The current measured service rates for
ISDN and switched 56k are a strong deterrent to Internet providers.
There is a call for digital dial-up access from the home or small
business or access at the local call charge level, and wider local
calling areas are desirable. This will be particularly important for
remote-rural communities who stand to gain the most from the massive
increase in access to information resources.
One respondent believes that there should be an extensive public
awareness campaign to familiarize the general public with the
educational and business benefits to be reaped on the Internet. The
intent of this suggestion is not to provide tutorials.
(4) What kinds of regulatory mechanisms are foreseeably necessary to
promote the development of and access to Internet ?
Responses to this question were extremely broad. Regulatory objective
mentioned would require implementation at the private, state, federal,
and international levels.
Removal of the NSF Acceptable Use Policy is advocated, and another
response called for an end to discrimination by requiring all Internet
providers to carry each others traffic. CIX has attempted to create
such a mechanism, however, the membership fees discourage small
providers in rural areas.
The flat rate vs. measured rate pricing of local loop usage is
mentioned again. There is also concern that if USWEST were allowed
to provide Internet access that they would discriminate against other
providers that use their LEC services, and that LECs would have an
unfair cost advantage as the result of infrastructure that was
developed under a monopoly scheme.
The expansion of universal service to include Internet access is
recommended. Furthermore, a symmetrical, asynchronous network is a
clear preference over an asymmetrical, synchronous network. There was
also some consensus that the rapid increase in Internet competition is
the best method of regulation regarding control over the Internet
itself.
On the international level, there needs to be an agreement regarding
the carriage of encrypted traffic and agreed standards of encryption.
The current U.S. government position regarding the exportation of
encryption technology and a "mandatory" hardware encryption scheme
that can be broken by the U.S. government is not acceptable in the
international environment.
(5) What kinds of regulatory mechanisms are foreseeably necessary over
the development of and access to Internet in order to protect
consumers ?
There is a belief shared by several respondents that regulation works
in the interest of large providers as opposed to individual consumers.
The presence of alternative providers and consumer choice in the
market place is considered to be self-regulating. Furthermore,
consumer groups and co-ops are envisioned as alternatives to
mainstream commercial ventures, however, these groups will not
organize unless they are assured of interconnection at competitive
rates. There is some concern that the monopoly LECs will be
proceeded by conglomerations of access providers that dominate the
availability of service. "Here's to the new boss, same as the old
boss." There is also concern that the current backbone administrators
will become even more politically entrenched and insulated than they
are now. There is no established due process safeguards within the
Internet hierarchy, and even though this may ultimately be a matter of
federal preemption it should be analyzed at all levels of review until
resolved.
Privacy is considered to be a huge issue and will become a widespread
concern if and when LECs and cable companies provide host computers
for Internet accounts. As mentioned above, some level of public key
encryption must be available.
Another unsettled area pertains to intellectual and personal property
rights to information generated, received, and stored in a personal
account. There have been several instances reported where disputes
have occurred between access providers and consumers based upon either
ideology or past due account receivables. These disputes have
resulted in the access provider disconnecting the consumer without
prior notice. Disconnection results in the loss of the consumer's
entire data files. This is akin to an unlawful detainer action where
eviction is accomplished by setting the tenant's possessions on fire.
Minimal safeguards would parallel restrictions on the seizure and
dispossession of tenants' personal property by public storage
management.
(6) To what extent and in what manner should government be involved
in the commercialization and/or privatization of Internet ?
This is an issue of the tenth magnitude within the Internet community,
and the range of responses to this question is indicative of its
scope. One of the common concerns among respondents is the
preservation of the non-commercial character of the Internet. One
role for government to take is to support the development of a strong
Internet service industry by providing Internet access for every
school, library, and other not-for-profit organizations, as well as
for all government agencies. The education and scientific communities
which contributed so much to the development of the Internet ought to
have a vested interest in the form of perpetual access. If ongoing
government subsidization is necessary in order to perpetuate this
access then so be it. The perception of the Internet as a public
trust is discussed in other sections of these comments. Insofar as
the essence of the Internet is information and information leads to
empowerment, government should ensure that access is made available at
all socio-economic levels.
One possibility would be to allow physical or virtual communities to
develop their own LECs in whatever form they may choose: as a "local
public utility" a` la water and sewer; as a neighborhood facility
comparable to the provisions of the FCC for "local neighborhood" low
power television systems; or as in-building, or in-complex systems,
comparable to "shared antenna" systems.
Other means for government to promote Internet access would be by:
placing public information on the Internet;making all government
offices accessible by the Internet; ensuring that different provider
networks have free access to each other; providing multiple options
for the last mile wire to the end point; and by supporting Freenets
or local Internet services.
There remains a concern that regulation may do more harm than good,
and the suggestion has been made that regulatory definitions be
drafted as narrowly as possible in order to minimize ambiguity. At
the same time, regulatory schemes must allow for flexibility to adjust
to changing conditions without having to go through repetitive
protracted proceedings.
INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDER SURVEY
(1) Do you envision expanding your service offerings to include a
wider range of communication services (i.e. telephone or programming
along with Internet connectivity) ?
While some access providers desire to stay focused on providing the
basic service level presently offered, others propose expansion to
include: videoconferencing networks which can gateway to a switched
network; subsequent augmentation of the video capability for
instructional/educational programming on demand; and eventually the
creation of multimedia reference sources.
(2) What are the obstacles to such an expansion ?
On a technical level the obstacles are: availability of bandwidth;
obtaining switched services; cost of usage; and the complexity of
accommodating multiple users.
On a practical level the obstacles are : obtaining the endorsement,
support, and participation of the educational community; market
penetration; and lack of venture capital.
(3) What are the benefits/advantages of such an expansion ?
Community and technical colleges need to be able to serve an
increasingly diverse, time-constrained and distance-bound population
without incurring the capital expense of facilities expansion.
Communities are enriched by the extension of campuses and educational
resources into their boundaries, and the provision of instruction on
demand is responsive to changing economic and personal conditions.
Multimedia is a natural extension in the development of the Internet.
Benefits include content specific presentation of reference material,
user friendly interfaces for novices, and greater flexibility in how
information is organized and accessed.
(4) What regulatory mechanisms are foreseeably necessary to promote
such an expansion ?
Government needs to ensure that data is easily and freely exchanged
between different provider networks with the costs of interchange
fairly shared. Access providers need bandwidth on demand at
affordable prices and/or some other kind of fiscal offset.
(5) What regulatory mechanisms are foreseeably necessary as a direct
consequence of such an expansion ?
As the technical distinctions between traditional telephony and data
networks begin to blur, this will become an increasingly difficult
issue to deal with. It is fast becoming possible to carry real-time
voice/video on the Internet which competes with the telecommunications
industry. There is disagreement whether passing voice/video on the
Internet is a waste of bandwidth, however, if more bandwidth becomes
available at affordable prices then this issue will resolve itself.
Internet access as a component of universal service, as well as
connection to every library and every classroom, will become more of a
necessity as time goes by.
REGULATION OF INTERNET
There are many expressions of concern on the "net" over what will
happen to the Internet and its associated subnetworks when it becomes
the subject of the best intentioned design and planning processes. A
major concern is the foreclosure of technology options that might take
place during the present state of laissez-faire oversight. One of the
worst things that could happen to the networking phenomenon now is to
inhibit its growth by overplanning. The free-form chaos of the
Internet is considered to be one of its greatest strengths. As
networking becomes more widespread, ways need to be devised in order
to preserve the informal character of networking while guaranteeing
widespread access to multiple constituencies. [21] Regulatory focus
should shift from a pattern of exclusion to one of inclusion.
There is considerable debate under way as to how the more-
commercialized Internet will be regulated. While commercialization
will inevitably lead to disputes that need to be mediated, there is a
reluctance among Internet policy makers to precisely define what is or
is not commercial content. Regulation of the flow of data by state
commissions within their borders is both antithetical to historic
Internet philosophy and practice. The technical reality of packet
switching is such that part of a message may be routed through one
jurisdiction on one occasion but not another. Furthermore, autonomous
regional networks may cross state boundaries. [22]
As commercialization proceeds, the possibility of corporate merger,
acquisition, and control increasingly becomes a valid concern.
Internet user groups develop a sense of community, and the loss of
citizen control harks back to a time of company towns. [23] EFF's
Kapor comments, "Communities, whether virtual or physical, should be
self-determining, rather than be determined by megacorporations." [24]
INTERNET AS A PUBLIC TRUST
On September 15, 1993, the Clinton Administration's interagency
Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) released a report that
has been termed the Administration's "agenda for action". The report
identifies nine principles and goals for development of the national
information infrastructure (NII). These principles and goals are
aimed at changing the local exchange marketplace to give all telephone
customers access to the NII, and specifically include extending the
traditional concept of universal service (affordable access to a dial
tone) to include affordable access to information services.
An occupational necessity for many today, access to the power of
networking is destined to be more than that. Pekka Tarjanne,
Secretary-General of the U.N. International Telecommunications Union,
asserts that access to information is a fundamental human right. [25]
The Internet, like so many other artifacts, is an expression of human
nature by the most efficient available technology; one of the deepest
parts of human nature is the affiliative impulse. [26]
The challenge of building a seamless end-to-end information network
has been referred to as the "moral equivalent" of the conquest of
space. Tom Valovic thinks of it as nothing less than the conquest of
our own sometime unruly collective (and increasingly networked)
intelligence. [27]
CONCLUSION
The transformation of the LEC marketplace from monopolistic to
competitive has already begun, and there is a consensus among
legislative policy-making analysts that local competition is
inevitable. [28] But the specific path to a truly competitive local
exchange operating as a segment of an advanced, accessible information
infrastructure is not yet clear. Legislative initiatives have been
introduced at both the state and federal levels contemporaneous with
this administrative NOI, and other proposed legislation for the State
of Washington has been posted on the Internet for preliminary comment.
(See Appendix C). The telecommunications industry's "new" service
objective - universal communications with anyone, anywhere, at any
time, and in any medium - dates back to Congressional testimony
presented by Joe Bader of AT&T in 1978. [29] In a call for cooperation
among industry leaders, researchers and engineer policy makers, and
regulators, Irwin Dorros, Bellcore executive vice president for
technical services, has issued the classic challenge, "If not you,
who? If not now, when? If not here, where?" [30]
Sincerely,
Larry Berg
Endnotes:
1. Joe Hommel and Tim Sweeney, WUTC Policy and Planning Office,
Alternative Regulation of USWEST: Toward A New Paradigm,
December 1, 1993, p. 9.
2. Robert Wright, "Life on the Internet", The New Republic, May
1993; Reprinted in Utne Reader, January/February 1994.
3. Bruce Sterling, "Internet", The Magazine of Fantasy and Science
Fiction, February 1993; also available as Literary Freeware on
the Internet, bruces@well.sf.ca.us.
4. Tom Valovic, "The Role of Computer Networking in the Emerging
Virtual Marketplace", Telecommunications, May 1993.
5. Jay Habegger, "Understanding the Technical and Administrative
Organization of the Internet", Telecommunications, April 1992.
6. Id.
7. Al Gore, "Infrastructure for the Global Village", Scientific
American, September 1991.
8. Robert Wright, Supra.
9. J.A. Savage and Gary Anthes, "Internet Privatization Adrift",
Computerworld, November 26, 1990.
10. John Markoff, "Research venture creates unit that can earn
profit", The New York Times, June 7, 1991, p. D15.
11. James N. Budwey, "A Metamorphosis in Communication",
Telecommunications, June 1992.
12. Robert Wright, Supra.
13. Jay Habegger, Supra.
14. Kevin Cooke and Dan Lehrer, "Who Will Own The Information
Highway", The Nation, July 12, 1993; Reprinted in Utne Reader,
January/February 1994.
15. Vinton G. Cerf, "Networks", Scientific American, September 1991.
16. Tom Valovic, Supra.
17. Id.
18. Robert Wright, Supra.
19. Id.
20. Tom Valovic, Supra.
21. Id.
22. Edward R. Kozel, "Commercializing Internet; Impact on Corporate
Users", Telecommunications, January 1992.
23. Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community, Addison-Wesley 1993.
24. Kevin Cooke and Dan Lehrer, Supra.
25. Irwin Dorros, "Calling For Cooperation", Bellcore Exchange
Magazine, November/December 1990; Reprinted in Telecommunications
Policy and Regulation 1993, Practicing Law Institute 1993.
26. Robert Wright, Supra.
27. Tom Valovic, Supra.
28. Thomas J. Casey-Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
"Developments In The Local Exchange Marketplace",
Telecommunications Policy and Regulation 1993, Practicing Law
Institute 1993.
29. Sandra L. Borthick, "Are the RBOCs up to the Competitive
Challenge", Business Communications Review, March 1990.
30. Irwin Dorros, Supra.
APPENDIX A
Subject: WUTC NOI; Internet User Survey
The state of Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC)
has initiated a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) relating to a new regulatory
paradigm directed at USWEST, a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC). I am an
attorney preparing comments to present the Internet and Internet user
perspectives. Due to the diversity of Internet viewpoints a survey is
under way in order to include those diverse viewpoints. Your input
is important and sincerely appreciated. Time is of the essence.
Your responses must be received by January 26, 1994.
BACKGROUND. WUTC Policy Staff analysis is that a new regulatory
paradigm is emerging that: (1) Recognizes there will not be a single
network; (2) Focuses on ensuring that these networks are open systems
and provide seamless interconnection; (3) Opens all telecommunications
markets to competition. Commission regulation would shift from price
and profit regulation to regulation of interconnection arrangement,
performance standards, and consumer protection; (4) Fairly allocates
the costs of transition among subscribers and providers; and (5)
Encourages providers to eliminate their ability to subsidize
competitive offerings with monopoly rates.
The WUTC is seeking focused responses to specific questions.
Although the intent of the NOI is to address competition at the LEC
level, the principles developed through comments and further analysis
apply more broadly.
SURVEY.
(1) What obstacles do monopoly LECs create to the development of and
access to Internet?
(2) How can increased competition at the LEC level promote the
development of and access to Internet?
(3) What infrastructure changes will promote the development of access
to Internet?
(4) What kinds of regulatory mechanisms are foreseeably necessary to
promote the development of and access to Internet?
(5) What kinds of regulatory mechanisms are foreseeably necessary over
the development of and access to Internet in order to protect
consumers?
(6) To what extent and in what manner should government be involved
in the commercialization and/or privatization of Internet?
Sincerely
LARRY BERG
nwsyslaw@netcom.com
APPENDIX B
Subject: WUTC NOI SURVEY NOTICE AND FOLLOW-UP
NOTICE TO ALL CONCERNED PARTIES. Thanks for your ongoing response to
the Internet Survey previously posted. Several parties have inquired
about the independent status of the survey. As you are aware,
"Internet " is a ubiquitous but divisive group. Nevertheless, WUTC
staff have expressed their concern that all parties affected by the
current NOI may not be represented. I am representing the Internet
as an Amicus Plebeius. I am not being paid by any party, nor am I
the agent or representative of any organization. This is a serious
non-partisan project. I do not require that anyone submit their
credentials as a condition to participation. I will post my report
upon its submission to the WUTC. Interested parties may independently
file their comments with the WUTC if they so choose.
SURVEY FOLLOW-UP TO INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDERS AND OTHER ENTREPRENEURS.
(1) Do you envision expanding your service offerings to include a
wider range of communication services (i.e. telephony or programming
along with Internet connectivity)?
(2) What are the obstacles to such an expansion?
(3) What are the benefits/advantages of such an expansion?
(4) What regulatory mechanisms are foreseeably necessary to promote
such an expansion?
(5) What regulatory mechanisms are foreseeably necessary as a direct
consequence of such an expansion?
Sincerely
LARRY BERG
nwsyslaw@netcom.com
APPENDIX C
AN ACT Relating to information transport; adding new sections to
chapter 80.36 RCW and creating a new section.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. It is the intent of the legislature to:
(1) Stimulate competition in the information industry by
coordinating and facilitating interconnection of competing networks to
increase overall internetwork efficiency;
(2) Ensure economic development opportunities through
competitively priced access to the information highway in communities
throughout the state;
(3) Stimulate entrepreneurial activity among information
transport and information content providers by removing barriers to
firms entering the information industry; and
(4) Encourage the development of a seamless information transport
network for voice, video, and data that interconnects residents,
businesses, and public agencies throughout the state.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. Unless the context clearly requires
otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout sections 2
through 4 of this act.
(1) "Commercial network access point" means a place where
interconnections between local and interlocal networks are made.
(2) "Information content provider" means an entity or part of an
entity that creates, owns, or distributes intellectual property,
including but not limited to a newspaper, television, or multimedia
company.
(3) "Information transport provider" means an entity or part of
an entity that owns, rents, or leases network infrastructure and
equipment, regardless of whether the provider is a land-based or
wireless provider, including but not limited to a telephone company or
cable company.
(4) "Interlocal network" means infrastructure designed to link
commercial network access points together or to other networks.
(5) "Local network" means infrastructure designed to link
residents and businesses to commercial network access points.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. Sections 2 through 4 of this act apply
to:
(1) A business and residential customer's access to information;
(2) An information provider of voice, video, or data
telecommunications service to the public or to a public agency or
group of agencies; and
(3) An information transport provider, even if that provider is
within a company or other entity that provides services other than
information transport.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. The commission shall adopt rules that:
(1) Facilitate the process by which information transport
providers can interconnect their networks with other networks for
transmission of voice, video, and data at compensatory rates;
(2) Require network interconnection specifications to be filed
with the commission;
(3) Facilitate the implementation and operation of commercial
network access points in this state;
(4) Require open access at commercial network access points so
the points cannot be controlled by a single provider or group of
providers at the exclusion of others;
(5) Specify the process for the location of commercial network
access points, in accordance with chapter 36.70A RCW, at neutral sites
that are not owned or occupied by information transport providers;
(6) Provide for the colocation of voice, video, and data network
connections in a single community commercial network access point; and
(7) Provide an application process under which information users
or providers may create new commercial network access points.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. Sections 2 through 4 of this act are
each added to chapter 80.36 RCW.
--- END ---
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION ACT
January 14 1994
The Telecommunications Competition Act causes developers of the
information highway to address the public good by equitably meeting
the needs of local communities and by stimulating economic development
in Washington. Monopoly control of telecommunications in any given
community is discouraged under the Act by facilitating open access to
interconnection of voice, video, and data networks at a local level.
This means that the connection to your home or business is an on-ramp
to the information highway and is not impeded by the interests of any
single entity.
The Act allows information providers to have open access to the
information highway at Commercial Network Access Points (CNAPs) where
interconnections between local and interlocal networks are made. Each
CNAP will serve the needs of a local community under the guidance of
the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) and in
accordance with the Growth Management Act.
The Telecommunications Competition Act ensures the process of locating
the CNAP sites are in the best interest of the local community. CNAP
sites are neutral places not controlled by any entity and are designed
to encourage interconnection between local communities and the world.
The WUTC will develop an application process whereby local communities
may create new CNAPs.
The Act provides a readable blueprint of the information highway to be
built to the specifications of the citizens of Washington. Genuine
competition within the telecommunications industry will promote choice,
costs effectiveness, and efficiency. CNAP sites will empower users
and providers with a workable forum in developing services customized
to the needs of individual communities.
The Act guarantees the information highway will belong to the citizens
of Washington state and ensures that the citizens will not be a
victim of opportunistic monopolies taking advantage of outdated
regulations.
For more information regarding this bill, contact:
Adam Feuer
adamfast@u.washington.edu
voice: (206)996-0794
fax: (206) 782-5776
Jeffrey Sterling
jeffgs@netcom.com
voice: (206) 368-7679
fax: (206) 365-7970
