[9805] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
re: bill text draft 2: Telecommunications Competition Act (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Sterling)
Fri Jan 21 16:24:55 1994
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 12:43:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeffrey Sterling <jeffgs@netcom.com>
To: Mark Crispin <MRC@panda.com>
Cc: adam fast <adamfast@u.washington.edu>, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: <MailManager.759180127.5537.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>
On Fri, 21 Jan 1994, Mark Crispin wrote:
> 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.
BS All the legislation does is degulate the local exchange so network
service providers would have a choice over who would carry packets.>
> It creates interconnection requirements that can only be provided at high
> cost.
>
This is the interconnection between local competing cable and telephone
providers not BBS sysops.
> 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.
BS The bill is designed to stimulate innovation by allowing the creation
of local enterprise networks that have open access to the TV settops
currently being developed. If you are an existing Internet provider,
stinking your head in the sand is not a vialble option. Evolve or die.
>
> 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.
CNAPs should look alot like the current CIX arrangements.
>
> 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.
What do you think is already happening? These megamergers are not
designed to protect you or anyone else that is not in bed with one of the
major alliances already announced.
Under the current "competitive" environment all it will take is for a US
West to do a deal with Delphi (Rupert Murdock) to offer cut rate access
to the Internet (via a private cable channel). And your small Internet
business would be history.
> 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.
BS CNAPs has nothing to do with government it has to do with providing
businesses and residents of an area with a road map of the information
highway. And it gives information transport developers a roadmap to
interconnect their systems.
> If we had this act 20 years ago, we would all still be paying a premium to use
> ``high-speed'' 300 baud modems.
We are currently paying a premium for local loop services. The cost of
information transport should be dropping at a rate equivalent to
computers ie we should be able to get a T1 (1.54 Mbs) line for the cost
of a current voice line (56kbs)
> 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.
The Act provides guidelines for interconnection. It does not (1) set
rates (2) control CNAPs (3) roll over to special interests
Special interest pressures already control the legislative process, this
Act is an attempt to shine a little light on the subject and introduce a
paradigm that the public can understand.
