[2043] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: interesting historical document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sean mclinden)
Mon Jan 20 11:01:15 1992
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 10:44:37 -0500
From: sean@dsl.pitt.edu (sean mclinden)
To: 0004524001@mcimail.com, com-priv@psi.com, stef@nma.com
Einer Stefferud <stef@nma.com> writes:
> I forwarded the following messages (text omitted) to a former FCC
> Bureau Chief, and I have included his response below.
>> From: "James C. McKinney" <0004524001@mcimail.com>
>> To: Stef <Stef@nma.com>
>> Subject: Re: An interesting question that you might want to comment on...
>> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 18:00 GMT
>> I don't think I have much to offer in this debate except to say in
>> bold type;
>> FARBER IS RIGHT....MCLINDEN IS WRONG!
Last week I received an electronic message from my grandfather who
wrote:
YOU CAN'T TRUST THOSE BOLSHEVIKS!
(He wrote it in boldface because he's using a Teletype model 30). I
included this because as long as we are discussing opinions instead of
facts...
>> I do take some offense at the off-hand comment about "corruption" at
>> the FCC. It rings of the same conspiracy theories that Stone applied
>> so well in the holiday release, "JFK". But I know there are those out
>> there who assume that everything the government does is for some
>> nefarious purpose. De-regulation of the phone industry, and all that
>> followed, were carried forth by the FCC with the single purpose of
>> producing a better, more flexible telecommunications system for the
>> USA. In that, it was a success.
On the last point I'd like to ask for documentation FROM THE USER'S
POINT OF VIEW! Not some map of the continent which shows trunks running
every which way. The claim has been made that we are all better off from
phone deregulation. PROVE IT! (It may be true but opinion is valueless).
I am a clinician, by training. When we assert that something is good for
a patient's health we are required to show rigorous proof of that, not
just simply an opinion. That proof must be based on firm experimental
evidence that demonstrates that alternative hypotheses are significantly
less probably as explanations than what we are asserting is true. An so,
I say, you have made a statement that we are better off for deregulation.
PROVE IT!
Secondly, I never suggested that the FCC was corrupt. In fact, just the
opposite. What I said was that some people may FEAR government regulation
because of the possibility of corruption. Again, McKinney may be offended,
but the history of the telecommunications industry and regulation has been
a mixed one. There have been examples of good regulation as well as regulation
which served only private interest. To take offense and say it ain't so
adds nothing to the discussion. It is better to recognize what went wrong
and fix it (see below).
Thirdly, the FCCs actions vis a vis deregulation are only part of a
complex picture. The antitrust suit (which was Justice Department) was
equally significant and illustrative of the fact that policies may not
always be consistent across branches of government. Again, all of this
argues that the implementation may be poor but the idea solid.
>> You really don't want the government setting your standards. First,
>> it lacks expertise to do so. As you know, Stef, computer gurus are
>> few and far between at the FCC...especially in the Common Carrier
>> Bureau which would likely get the nod to handle such a rulemaking.
True. Again, this is a fault of the system and not a fault of regulation.
(And I am not arguing FOR regulation). But you argue that the government
can't be in the business of regulation because they don't have the talent.
Fine, GET IT OR GET OUT. The government of this country was designed to
protect the interests of the individual. What you say is as much an admission
that they cannot.
Furthermore, your example of the All-channel Receiver Act was perfectly
consistent with what I was arguing: that market forces will not, alone,
be sufficient to guarantee the goal of universal access. In fact, you
provided an example which substantiated my claim!
>> Secondly, the Commission will have to listen to all comers, not just
>> the computer-niks. And, they are more comfortable listening to the
>> Washington telephone lobby. That will not necessarily inure to your
>> benefit.
No. It is not necessarily right either! My point (and you took offense
to this) is that the regulators are often more concerned with what is good
for business rather than the individual. "Corruption" was *your* word for
this, not mine. What *I* said is that the government is, frequently, in
the business of being both a consumer and a business advocate. This is
not, I suspect, what our forefathers intended. BTW, the FCC is not the
only agency with this conflict. The conflicting roles of the FAA has long
been a subject of intense concern.
You make it sound like some vision of the future is cloudy. What is
cloudy is public policy and the relationship between government, business,
and the individual. What *should* be is a lot more obvious that you
portray it.
But perhaps the most damning evidence that pure market forces are to
be left alone has been on the front pages of every paper for the last two
weeks. Tell me, where have those market forces protected the individual
in the case of silicone breast implants? Or do you believe that this
market is somehow substantially different?
I have never argued that regulation is good and business bad, nor the
converse. What I believe is that the processes of regulation and free
market (as if one really exists) forces exist in a dynamic but homeostatic
environment in which changes are constantly need to preserve the health
of the whole organism. This is no different that what occurs in biology
and why should not our social and political processes reflect the nature
of our physiologic processes. There is a need for constant balance, and
adjustment to perturbation, if the end goal is to be achieved. What is
that end goal? Clearly we do not have agreement though I suggested that
the EFF manifesto might be worthy of consideration.
But government, and by that I mean the agency charged with the duty of
protecting the public interest, has been pro-active with respect to
developing this technology, while retro-active with respect to analysis
and regulation. They, typically, wait until free market forces get bad
before they act, through regulation, legislation, or anti-trust action.
And then what they do is typically puntitive and reactionary.
We have a wealth of history that suggests that intelligent decisions
could be made now, to expand the marketplace and protect individual
interests while allowing private and business interests to flourish.
You argue that:
1) We shouldn't step in because free market forces are good.
History proves you wrong! Why do we have lemon laws? Who put
seat belts in cars? Flameproof materials in airplanes? Grounded
sockets in homes and 3-pronged appliances?
2) We shouldn't step in because we don't have the expertise to do it
right.
History agrees with you in some cases; not in others. But the fact that
there have been problems in the quality of the implementors (your point,
not mine), does not mean that a good implementation cannot be achieved.
Instead of flaming me, you should be talking to Congress about how to
get a better budget so that you can get the expertise in-house to study
these issues and develop a coherent strategic plan. Heaven knows there
is a wealth of opinion in the form of documentation already out there.
What is lacking is the courage at the Federal level to do the right
thing.
In any event, what I was arguing for is more open discussion on what
it is that we want and how to get it. And I suggested that regulation
could be a powerful and positive factor in attaining our goals. I don't
see where your comments in any way refute those claims.
Sean McLinden
