[9797] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
re: bill text draft 2: Telecommunications Competition Act (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Fri Jan 21 15:12:24 1994
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 11:22:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@panda.com>
To: adam fast <adamfast@u.washington.edu>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, nii_agenda@civicnet.org,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9401211137.E19131-0100000@goren2.u.washington.edu>
I have to disagree with Jeff Sterling's claims. [By the way, what does the
University of Vermont have to do with Washington legislation????]
The new section 4 adds several new and burdensome requirements upon network
service providers. Applications would now have to be filed with the
government. The government would have control over the nature of the
connection, and pricing.
It creates interconnection requirements that can only be provided at high
cost.
It prevents technological innovation by eliminating any competitive benefit to
providing it; a service provider is effectively banned from offering a
superior level of service than its competitors.
It talks about CNAPs as being at neutral sites that are not owned and operated
by the service providers; yet fails utterly to indicate how the CNAPs are to
develop.
The result will be a market in which only the largest players can afford to
join, and in which only a base level of service will exist.
It is particularly ironic that this is claimed to provide for more
competition, considering that a monopoly is granted to the single CNAP in each
community. Although the act alleges ``open access'' to the CNAP, it says
nothing about rates or terms of connection to the CNAP. Surprise, this will
all be set by government bureaucrats. So will the technical charactistics of
the CNAPs.
If we had this act 20 years ago, we would all still be paying a premium to use
``high-speed'' 300 baud modems.
Although its proponents pontificate about how it will promote competition, in
fact, this act seizes control of networking in the state of Washington from
the market and turns it over to state regulating authorities which are
vulnerable to special-interest pressure.
This ``Telecommunications Competition Act of 1994'' is a terrible law and it
must be defeated.
