[10852] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
My reply to Jamie's note Re: The FCC strikes the Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Farber)
Sat Mar 12 14:38:10 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 11:27:38 -0500
To: com-priv@psi.com
From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber)
Posted-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 03:24:04 -0500
X-Sender: farber@linc.cis.upenn.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 03:24:12 -0500
>From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber)
Subject: Re: The FCC strikes the Internet
Precedence: list
To: interesting-people@eff.org (interesting-people mailing list)
>Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 21:44:53 -0500 (EST)
>From: James Love <love@Essential.ORG>
>Subject: Re: The FCC strikes the Internet
>To: David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>
>cc: interesting-people mailing list <interesting-people@eff.org>
>David, the language that you posted to Interesting-people really deals
>with two separte issues. 1). the FCC would be required to accept
>comments from the pulbic on the future of democratic discourse via the
>internet, and comment specifically on whether or not telephone companies
>should be required at provide some type of flat rate access to the
>net, not as a monopoly provider, but as one of many ways that people get
>access to this network. I don't think it will be the end of the world if
>this issue is debated openly, and we confront the future of the net with
>a privatized NSF backbone. If you are so confident that FCC involvement
>isn't a good thing, you will probably carry the day by a huge margin, and
>I perhaps I will agree with you. Asking of an inquiry is just asking
>that this be deal with in an open and democratic forum.
>2). The second part of the amendement referred to any entirely separate
>issue of how consumers are represented before the FCC. Again, it is just
>a study to look at different models.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why shouldn't there be some debate and
>analysis of these issues?
We could not agree more. I am a complete believer that we must discuss this
in an open and democratic forum. As I have said I just dont believe that
the FCC is the right or wise place for that discussion to take place. Again
mostly because it's mechanisms are limited and stoggy and because it would
start us down the regulatory path that I think both of us would rather
avoid.
It seems to me that a good start would be a smallish conference where all
the relevent parties can get to present their opinions on the role of
networking in a democratic society. The results of such a meeting would be
widely available (maybe live). The model coming into my head is the
constitutional debates held on the 200 anniv of the Constitution in
Philadelphia. If there is any interest in so organizing such a forum, I
would be happy to explore whether Penn would host such a meeting
>By the way, a number of persons were responsible for the legislative
>language that you quoted, and there is no need to worry about who gets
>the credit or blame, as the case may be.
Fine -- I was not at all worried and my comment on who gets the blame had a
big :-) after it.
>- jamie
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>James Love, Taxpayer Assets Project; internet: love@essential.org
>P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
>12 Church Road, Ardmore, PA 19003; v. 215/658-0880; f. 215/649-4066
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
