[8]                        Report from INET'96 Part II
                                      by Ronda Hauben
                                         ronda@panix.com

[Editor's Note: Following is an account of the final plenary at INET'96 
held by the Internet Society in Montreal in June, 1996. A report on the 
conference as a whole appears in an article elsewhere in this issue.]

     The final talk was to be given by Reed Hundt of the U.S. Federal 
Communications Commission. He didn't attend however, and instead the talk 
was given by Blair Levin, Chief of Staff at the FCC.(1)

     The talk was a surprise as it seemed uninformed both about the history 
and importance of the Internet and of the important public policy 
considerations that need to be taken into account when making any rules for 
regulating the Internet.(2)

     At the beginning of the talk, there was the statement that Reed Hundt 
was the first FCC Chairman to have a computer on his desk, and that he 
asked his staff to explain how the Internet works. Instead of a commitment 
to learn about how the Internet developed and the significant impact it is 
having on the world, Levin presented us with the statement "the Internet 
gives us the opportunity to change all our communications policies."

     The FCC is taking license to start from scratch, throwing out all the 
lessons that have helped the Internet grow and develop, and instead, 
creating its own models.

     In his talk, Blair Levin listed five principles:

  1. How can public policy promote expansion of bandwidth?
  2. What rules can we get rid of or keep?
  3. What should be the pricing mechanism?
  4. How to make sure it reaches everyone, especially kids in schools.
  5. How to make sure it reaches across the globe.

     Levin's principles put universal service as the fourth point, and then 
substituted access for kids in schools for the principle of universal 
service.

     During the talk, Levin described how the NTIA (the National 
Telecommunications Information Administration) had submitted an important 
paper to the FCC on the issue of voice over the Internet. This made it 
clear that the NTIA had not submitted any paper to the FCC on the issue of 
universal service, despite the fact that they had held an online hearing on 
several issues, including universal service and the Internet, in November 
1994. The NTIA has done nothing to act on the broad expression of sentiment 
for universal service that was expressed during that online public 
meeting.(3)

     When asked about the NTIA online meeting, Blair said that the FCC knew 
of the meeting. However, it has had no effect on their deliberations, nor 
on the request of people that the FCC open up their decision-making process 
so that the people who are being penalized by their decisions can have a 
means of providing input into those decisions.
Š
     In response to a question about the need for universal service, Blair 
responded that that was the obligation of other branches of the U.S. 
government like the Department of Education. He said this despite the fact 
the FCC is charged with making rules to provide for the universal service 
provisions of the Telecommunications Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 
February 1996.

     Blair also claimed to welcome submissions into their process. But I 
found it would cost over $50 to pay postage costs for a submission since 
there were over 35 people who had to receive a copy (and postage on a 
minimal submission was $1.45).(4) In response to a complaint about this 
cost, Blair said to see Kevin Werbach, a lawyer at the FCC, who had come 
with him. Kevin Werbach offered no means of dealing with the high cost of 
making a submission.

     Many people at the Internet Society Conference applauded in response 
to the question about the lack of concern by the FCC for the principle of 
universal service to the Internet. At the Internet Society conference, many 
people spoke up about the need in their countries, whether that be Canada, 
or Norway, or Ghana, etc. for the Net to be more widespread and available 
to the public for educational and community purposes. Many were concerned 
about the inability of the so called "market forces" to provide networking 
access to other than corporate or well-to-do users. Yet, Levin's talk, 
being given in the name of Reed Hundt, the Chairman of the regulatory body 
in the U.S. charged with making the rules to provide for universal service, 
was unconcerned about the important issues and problems that providing 
universal service to the Internet raises.

     It is unfortunate that Reed Hundt did not come to the conference and 
take up the challenge to learn what the real concerns of people around the 
world are with regard to access to the Internet. Isolated in Washington, 
with no access to him possible for most people (though someone from one 
company told me that he was told to send him e-mail whenever he had a 
concern), it seems difficult for the rules process to be able to produce 
any helpful outcome. There need to be open meetings and sessions where 
people who are concerned with these issues are invited to be heard and to 
discuss these issues with the FCC. Instead the FCC process is being carried 
out in a manner similar to the non public process carried on behind closed 
doors which was used by the U.S. Congress to craft the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996.

     It is a tribute to the Internet Society that they did make an effort 
to invite government officials like Reed Hundt to the conference. The FCC 
will be setting an example for the rest of the world by the 
telecommunications policy rules it creates. Will the policy be one that 
recognizes that the so called "market" cannot provide the free or low cost 
access to the Internet that is necessary to make universal service a 
reality? Will the rules created be based on looking back at how time-
sharing and then the ARPANET and the Internet developed so they can build 
on those lessons?

     To create rules that are based on firm lessons from the past and firm 
principles so they will be fruitful, it is necessary that the FCC process 
creating those rules be much more open than it is at present. If the FCC
could learn from the experience of the Internet and set up newsgroups and
real e-mail access to the officials involved, that would demonstrate a 
commitment to more equitable access to the Internet and to the FCC 
rulemaking process that is needed to make the Internet available to all. 
But from the recent talk presented by the FCC official at INET'96 there 
seems little indication that the need for an open process and a many-to-
many means of communication is recognized among those at the FCC. There is 
even less evidence that the FCC is capable of making rules for universal 
service in order to make Internet access available to all.

[Editor's note: Shortly after this report from INET'96 was posted on 
Usenet, the FCC supported an online forum to gather input into its rule 
making process on universal access. However, the forum was moderated and 
only posts about access to schools, libraries, non-profit organizations, 
etc. were encouraged. Those concerned with access for the home users were 
told their input was not appropriate for this online forum.  The FCC has 
actively discouraged the interest of home users of the Internet to be 
presented at its hearings.]

Notes
(1) A version of the talk is available at:
          http:// www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/spreh629.txt

(2) This is particularly surprising in light of the "Notice of Inquiry" 
    issued by the Federal Communications Commission, Ben F. Waple, 
    Secretary, Docket No. 16979, November 10, 1966. In this inquiry the FCC 
    noted the growing convergence of computers and communications and 
    recognized these would raise a number of regulatory and policy 
    questions that the FCC would be obligated to address. The Commission 
    acknowledged its obligation under the Telecommunications Act to respond 
    to these questions by "timely and informed resolution...so as to serve 
    the needs of the public effectively, efficiently, and economically." A 
    copy of this inquiry is available in Conversational Computers, edited 
    by William D. Orr, New York, 1968, p. 177-186.

(3) For a summary of the discussion during the online meeting about the 
    need for universal service, see "The NTIA Conference on the Future of 
    the Net: Creating a Prototype for a Democratic Decision Making Process" 
    by Ronda Hauben http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x11 and "The Net 
    and the Future of Politics: The Ascendency of the Commons," by Michael 
    Hauben http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x14

(4) I personally made the effort to make a submission. In the process, I 
    learned the high cost of having to serve 35 parties by mail in addition 
    to providing several copies to the FCC itself. Such costly postage and 
    copying requirements effectively bar many interested people who will be 
    affected by the rules from participating in the proceedings determining 
    the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 2 Winter 1997
        available free via email from jrh@umcc.umich.edu and
                http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/acn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------