[10854] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The FCC strikes the Internet (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Rutkowski)
Sat Mar 12 15:54:21 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 12:35:54 +0500
To: James Love <love@essential.org>, com-priv@psi.com
From: Tony Rutkowski <amr@isoc.org>
At 08:28 AM 12/3/94, James Love wrote:
>with two separate issues. 1). the FCC would be required to accept
>comments from the public 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.
Jamie,
Several questions:
1) While it's a noble aim to encourage democratic discourse with
which we all might agree, what does it mean to use the Internet
to do so? And is this a function properly within the ambit of
a national public telecom regulatory agency?
The Internet is, of course, the concatenation of about 30,000
networks and 2.2 million computer hosts around the world - mostly
privately owned. What's the implication - that because someone,
somewhere in the world attaches a network or host as part of the
Internet that they should be under a government imposed obligation?
2) While flat rate pricing has been endemic to the provisioning
of most Internet access (and increasingly, to some telecom sectors
as well), what does it mean to require "telephone companies...
to provide some type of flat rate access to the net..." ? Why just
for Internet access? Why just the telephone companies? What is
meant by "access?" And isn't this question complicated by numerous
local variables relating to geography, technology, population density,
and competitive alternatives? The jurisdiction is also shared in the
US with State regulatory authorities. Isn't this going to get pretty
messy?
3) Isn't this pricing issue really just a subset of global issues
that have threaded their way through GATT, ITU, OECD to focus on the
provision of underlying telecom transport capacity by monopoly
carriers on a non-discriminatory "cost-oriented" basis? Wouldn't
everyone be best served in focussing on this generic concern, and
making the case for flat-rate pricing where it is reasonable to demand
it's being available on a cost-oriented basis?
ciao,
--tony
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Tony Rutkowski
Executive Director
Internet Society
1895 Preston White Dr #100 (until 21 March)
12020 Sunrise Valley Dr #270 (after 21 March)
Reston VA 22091
USA
tel: +1 703 648 9888
fax: +1 703 648 9887
THE INTERNET IS ITS OWN REVOLUTION
Internet - une revolution qui lui est propre
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
