Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1995/Telecom.Post.1.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
Telecom Post #1
```
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 03:44:51 -0700
From: CWHITCOM@bentley.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list
==================================================== ################ ############# ################ ## # ## ############# ## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ### ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### #
---
Free Speech Media, LLC
May 16, 1995
Number 1
==============================================================
Compiled, written, and edited by Coralee Whitcomb Please direct comments and suggestions to cwhitcom@bentley.edu
===============================================================
The Telecom Post will be published weekly while the U.S. Congress reconfigures our telecommunication reality. It is posted to a number of lists and is also available from the CPSR listserv. To subscribe send to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG with the message SUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST YOUR NAME.
=========================================
Legislative Timeline
Though telecommunications legislation is said to be on the fast track in both the House and Senate, a number of both internal and external snags seem to be waiting in the wings. The White House has weighed in with objections to S652 and the Justice and Commerce departments have raised their voices as well. The House bill, H1555, will apparently undergo a good deal of scrutiny from various quarters as its bipartisan spirit is on the wane. Though everyone seems determined to pass legislation this year, its ride on the fast track seems to have slowed down enough for all us to get a look at it.
The administration has finally come forward with a set of goals for the NII. They are:
1. The NII should be many-to-many (not one-to-many)
2. The NII should support a wide variety of applications (not just video)
3. The NII should lower barriers to publishing
4. The NII should provide low barriers to access providers
5. The NII should be flexible and able to take advantage of the continuous technological changes
S. 652 - Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995
Costs
The Senate Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office, and International Communications Association have determined that the bill is "revenue-generating" and would serve as an "indirect tax" on the consumer. Increased revenue would stem from the cessation of rate of return regulation by states and cities. The International Communications Association estimates this as $44 billion telco rate increase in five years. The universal service requirements would raise costs and therefore rates passed on to rate payers by $7 billion, constituting an indirect tax. This new wrinkle means the Finance Committee has to get involved Finance is headed by Senator Packwood, one of the two "no" votes in the Commerce Committee. Taxing legislation must originate in the House.
The Consumer Federation of America and The American Association of Retired Persons argue, along with V. P. Gore, that the deregulation of cable rates will result in much higher costs to the average American taxpayer. Current language requires cable rate regulation only when cable rates "substantially exceed" the national average. Given that two cable companies control 40% of the market - that average would not be difficult to control.
Competition
The House and Senate legislation drastically reduce the role of the Justice Department citing its inabililty to make quick determinations as the reason. Justice Department Antitrust Chief Anne Bingaman argues that the DOJ can do better and should be in charge of applying the Section 8(c) test of the Modified Final Judgment in determining whether Bell entry into long distance presents "no substantial possibility" of impeding competition. The current legislation manages this with the FCC using a checklist in order to determine if competition exists. Bingaman argues that both FCC and DOJ should analyze different aspects of each case. Senate Judiciary Chairman, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is inclined to support a greater DOJ role as is the White House. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Il) has introduced H.R. 1528 that retains the role of DOJ but changes the key standard to "dangerous probability" that a Bell company could create a monopoly situation. Though Bingaman doesn't approve of that language either, it opens the door to rebuild a DOJ presence in the game.
Privacy
The much publicized Exon Amendment is still under the knife. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has introduced S.714, the Child Protection, User Empowerment, and Free Expression in Interactive Media Study measure. The Department of Justice claims that the Exon approach will actually hamstring their attempts to enforce child pornography and obscenity laws. Leahy's bill, on the other hand, encourages the development of technologies to enable the screening of unwanted material. It blocks, not censors, content without drawing boundaries around the First Amendment.
S 735 - The Electronic Surveillance Provisions of the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.
As should be expected, the Oklahoma City bombing gave a leg-up fans of surveillance. Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have co-sponsored bill S. 735 to fund the digital telephony infrastructure. The Electronic Privacy Information Center has lead the cry against this funding claiming that it will do less to enable criminal investigations than to develop a surveillance infrastructure on all telephone communications. The Dole-Hatch bill would also permit foreign government agents to participate in the interception of communications and to receive such communications. The law surrounding foreign use of these interceptions is not clearly explained. More information can be found at http://epic/terrorism or wiretap@epic.org.
S 710 - The Communications Interoperability Act of 1995
In the interest of the fullest degree of interoperability possible and in order to enjoy the greatest possible benefit from our information infrastructure, Senator Bob Kerry has sponsored S710. This bill calls for the FCC and NIST to monitor voluntary industry standards processes and to "assist these bodies in the identification and promotion of open and interoperable interface specifications."
H.R. 1555 - Communications Act of 1995
This year's House bill is co-sponsored, unsurprisingly, by Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA) and Rep. Jack Fields (R-TX). Conspicuously absent, however, is Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA). While bi-partisanship was to be the name of the game, Markey pulled out at the last moment over cable rate deregulation provisions.
The House bill introduces competition in much the same way as the Senate bill, with checklist of criteria. It is also similar in offering relief from the Rate of Return regulation though it would wait 3 years to take effect. The Senate bill would change this immediately.
Universal Service
The much discussed concept of universal service will be placed in the hands of a joint Federal-State Board under the auspices of the FCC. Within 9 months it will submit recommendations to the FCC and State commissions. These will advance the principles of 1) just and reasonable rates; 2) promotion of access to the advanced services and reasonably comparable services for the general public in urban and rural areas, 3) adequate and sustainable support mechanisms, 4) equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions from all telecommunications providers, and 5) educational access to advanced telecommunications services. This board will have but one consumer advocate - nominated by a national organization of State utility consumer advocates. The Telecommunications Policy Roundtable - Northeast is advocating for a change that would require one-third of the Joint Board members to "fully represent the range of public societal concerns and interests including education, health, and the general welfare of the nation."
Much like the Rockefeller, Snowe, Exon, Kerry Amendment to S 265, People for the American Way have proposed amended language to HR 1555 that will "ensure end-to-end access at not higher than incremental-cost based rates for elementary", secondary, colleges, universities, public and nonprofit entities providing community services. An effort is underway to make Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) aware of our concern over this issue. His fax number is 202-225-8689. His staff person on this issue is Colin Crowell.
Open Platform
The call for an open platform has been reissued by the Taxpayer's Assets Program. Advocating for the rapid deployment of ISDN service, TAP, is looking for language to amend HR 1555 to require" a dominant local exchange carrier who provides ISDN services to charge no more than the cost of voice grade service, plus the incremental cost of the upgrade to ISDN." It is thought that this incremental cost would be around $10/month. In real terms, this would mean that the typical homeowner would get a high speed digital connection more than able to deliver the World Wide Web in all its glory, over existing wires - now- for a slightly increased monthly charge. Access to this kind of bandwidth would encourage all kinds of entrepreneurial endeavors and open the online world to many who can otherwise expect a long wait. The provision would end when determination is made that competition exists in the local area.
Local Franchises
HR 1555 prohibits local franchise agreements with telecommunication providers. In essence, this bars local municipalities from receiving revenues for the use of their public right-of-ways - allowing private use of a public good without public reimbursement. Currently, cable companies are required to compensate a local municipality for their use of the right-of-way. These franchise agreements often result in public access TV channels which allow the public access to the airwaves in the local area. This provision is widely opposed by the nation's mayors.
HR - 994 The Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of 1995
Regulatory reform is about to jump center stage and the Citizens for Sensible Safeguards will see to it that we are kept well informed. HR 994 requires federal agencies to review their regulations, do a cost/benefit analysis, and receive public input on a regular basis. The life cycle of current regulations is 7 years and 3 years for those developed after passage of the legislation. While the goal of culling out unnecessary regulation is great - this level of attention "would take crucial time away from enforcement of vital federal safeguards, clog our court system with unnecessary dilatory lawsuits and undermine the relationship between the regulated community..and federal regulators". It's been said that the bill will essentially grind the regulatory process to a halt. CSS post to res@rtk.net, 5/12/95
With every passing hour, there is more to report. Many of these bills go to markup this week. Hopefully there will be good news to report in the next issue. ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.