[9809] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
re: bill text draft 2: Telecommunications Competition Act (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Fri Jan 21 17:43:43 1994
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 14:10:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@panda.com>
To: Jeffrey Sterling <jeffgs@netcom.com>
Cc: adam fast <adamfast@u.washington.edu>, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.85.9401211257.A282-0100000@netcom>
On Fri, 21 Jan 1994 12:43:57 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Sterling wrote:
> BS All the legislation does is degulate the local exchange so network
> service providers would have a choice over who would carry packets.
Wrong.
4(1) specifically involves the state in the details of interconnection between
networks. 4(2) requires that any proposed interconnect be filed with the
state. 4(5) and 4(6) dictate a monopoly on interconnects at a single CNAP and
ban private or restricted interconnects.
> This is the interconnection between local competing cable and telephone
> providers not BBS sysops.
Apparently you labor under the fantasy that I am a BBS sysop.
> 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.
And you propose to do this through government regulation??
> If you are an existing Internet provider,
> stinking your head in the sand is not a vialble option. Evolve or die.
Here we arrive at the crux of the matter. A group of busybody activists see
something that is not under their control, and seek to apply the force of
government to take it over.
This isn't about ``open access''. It is about control.
> 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.
Nonsense. There are plenty of small service providers in Washington State,
and more are springing up all the time. What this bill would do is shut down
those small providers, since they lack the resources to do the all the things
demanded of them in the bull.
> 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.
Strawman. The current cable TV infrastructure lacks the resources to support
such an adventure. Cut-rate Internet access is of remarkably low priority for
either US West or Rupert Murdock.
Internet access from small businesses is already down to $10/month. It is far
more likely that, should the infrastructures get into place, that the current
crop of small businesses will become VARs for US West or similar organizations
(they are, in fact, presently VARs for NorthWestNet, ANSnet, PSI, etc.).
The much greater worry is that US West, etc. will ignore Internet, not
monopolize it.
> 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.
4(4), 4(5), and 4(6) provides for government regulation and control of CNAPs,
which are enfranchised as a monopoly over all interconnect of voice, video,
and data network communication.
4(4) bans private or limited interconnects. It also forces any provider who
wishes to install new or innovative interconnect technology to give access to
that technology to his competitors. This will effectively stifle any
infrastructure improvements. The current rate of infrastructure improvement
has been fueled by the one-upmanship of competitors trying to gain an edge by
offering unique technology at a lower price. 4(4) would put an end to this.
> 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)
Yeah, and Cable TV regulation last year was going to slash everybody's bills.
Most of these premiums for communication services are established by tariffs
established by the state regulatory commissions. The lowest priced services
are invariably the ones which are least regulated. The price of Internet
access has plummeted like a paralyzed falcon entirely because it has not been
regulated at all.
> 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.
The public is not going to understand. Most of the public is not going to
care. What this proposed law does is empower small groups of activists who
wish to dictate the form and structure of the infrastructure.
