[10874] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The FCC strikes the Internet (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Love)
Sun Mar 13 06:31:40 1994
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 01:17:09 -0500 (EST)
From: James Love <love@essential.org>
Reply-To: James Love <love@essential.org>
To: Tony Rutkowski <amr@isoc.org>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9403121242.aa07593@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
On Sat, 12 Mar 1994, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> 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?
Well, in my view, the debates which we have on com-priv and thousands
of other listserves are democratic discourse, on the internet. The
internet was created by the government to facilitate research and
communications among researchers, and today it is used by a much larger
group. But I don't think anyone knows what will happen when NSF pulls
the plug on the backbone, regarding the types of non-commerical
publishing we now all enjoy.
Apparently quite a few persons do not like the idea of asking the FCC
to study this issue, or to accept public comments on what if anything
should be done to protect to enhance this democratic and empowering
aspect of the Internet. While I don't want to defend the FCC in general,
I'm at a loss to suggest someone else in the government that would be
asked to think about this issue.
What is needed is a national system to sending and receiving electronic
mail, which would allow the systems of listserves to survive and
prosper. It seems to us that metering email, if it comes to that, would
change the existence of the listserves, as we now know them. Since we
think the listserves are important, we want to be assured that they will
survive and prosper. It may take government action to do this, and it
may not. I think it would be a good idea of have a national discussion
on this, hosted by the FCC and NTIA, as the amendment would require.
>
> 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?
There is a question of what common carrier telephone companies should
be required to do, with regard to internet access. This would not bind
independent companies providing internet access, nor would that be desirable.
One thought that I have entertained, is that if the telephone companies
are required to provide a flat rate service, they might have a different
attitude about future settlement negotiations. I would be interested in
your views on this.
>
> 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?
We are particularly interested in the ability to send and receive
electronic mail, and how electronic mail can be used to foster national
debates and discussions that were not possible before. I personally
don't think that flat rate pricing of other internet services are nearly
as important, in terms of the consequences for democracy, which is
something that is increasingly being threatened by the overwhelming
influence of private campaign financing and the highly manipulative
advertising media. I'm sure that there are a number of difficult and
thorny issues, and I think it woulb be useful to think about them more,
even though they are difficult problems -- indeed, because they are
difficult problems.
>
> 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?
We support a system that would allow private parties who are
not telephone companies to provide whatever internet services they
wanted, metered or unmetered. So please do not state incorrectly that we
are proposing or are in favor of a monopoly service. We prefer
competition and free entry (as we did in our testimony before the Markey
Subcommittee on competition in the local loop).
More important, I am very interesting in knowing what other solutions
may exist. If requiring flat rate pricing by telephone companies is a
bad idea, what is a better idea? We don't care about telephone companies
or even flat rate pricing, as much as we care about the future of the
listserves. I hope that I have made that point clear tonight.
We have something very valuable today, and that is the ability to have
this discussion, with thousands of persons participating. That is more
important to me than 500 channels of video services, or the fact that it
may be difficult to preserve this aspect of our culture.
- 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
