[10] FCC Submission in Universal Service Rulesetting Proceedings by Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com [Editor's Note: The following was submitted to the FCC as input into the Universal Service Proceedings in CC Docket No. 9 6-45 before the May 7, 1996 deadline. The U.S. Congress has mandated a set of deadlines for the FCC to create rules that will radically restructure the telecommunications infrastructure in the U.S. and with it the provisions for universal service for the home user. This submission into the FCC proceedings was to protest these radical changes in the definition and implementation of universal service without the participation or input of the many home users.] I - Introduction Following is a response to some of the discussion initiated by the Benton Foundation regarding how to look at the question of Universal Service toward the FCC proceedings on input for the Universal Service definition to function under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The following is from a post on the Netizens Association Mailing List. Kerry Miller posted the Benton Foundation excerpts which are indicated by the > and I responded to them. May 7 was the deadline for FCC comments on the comments previously submitted to them and I am submitting this and also posting it as a way to try to open up the discussion on the principles that should guide a definition of universal service regarding online access. Also, after several efforts to try to determine if comments could be submitted via email, I was told that comments could be submitted to ssegal@fcc.gov via e-mail, but they would be considered informal comments. I am submitting these comments to the FCC via e-mail, but hope that they will be considered as part of proceedings, as there isn't much point in saying one can submit something via e-mail if they aren't taken seriously. II - Comments On Fri, 3 May 1996, Kerry Miller posted the following from the Benton Foundation postings about universal service: [My comments follow -RH] > http://www.benton.org/Goingon/advocates.html > Public Interest advocates, universal service, and > the Telecommunications Act of 1996 > > The questions public interest advocates should be > asking themselves and the FCC include: > * How should the discussion of Universal Service > be framed? Is Universal Service about connecting > phones? Connecting people with phones? Or > connecting people with people? How can the > discussion center around the people who need to > benefit from the policy most? This is worth considering. But it is hard to understand how the question can be framed adequately if the folks for whom this is important have no way to be part of the discussion. That is why there is a need for universal access to Usenet newsgroups and e-mail so folks can have a chance to speak about what the real problems and needs are. > * How is the value of a network-any network, > phone or computer-diminished as fewer and fewer > people have access to it? The question seems as if it is phrased backwards. The issue is how does the value of any network increase as more and more people have access to it and are able to contribute to it. The ability to contribute is crucial with regard to a network like the Internet and Usenet. > What can be done to identify the communities and > individuals most at risk of falling off the networks > that will make up the National Information > Infrastructure? Again the questions seems backwards. First there is NO National Information Infrastructure (at least not in the U.S.). There is an Internet that people have built over a period of several decades. The work has often been funded by research institutions or government, but people have contributed to the content and technical needs and development. The question that needed to be raised was What was the value of this development and how to extend access to it? Since this development was not the result of commercial enterprises, but of people contributing, made possible by academic and government support and sometimes also support from companies who benefitted from their participation, it has been inappropriate to set commercialization and privatization as the first goals of the policy, without allowing public discussion into what the policy should be and why. > What strategies can be employed to add people to > the networks and keep them on? How can the > voices of the people who have fallen off > the networks be included in the rulemaking? It is good to see that the question is being raised of how to have the voices of people included in the rulemaking. The problem right now is that the voices of those on or off the Internet are basically excluded from being heard in the rulemaking procedure since the dead lines have been so quick and the means of even getting the law or the submissions have been basically beyond most people (one has to be able to download things that are in WordPerfect it seems). In any case, it has been made very difficult to even access the ma terial at the FCC's WWW site and it has been made virtually impossible to have any contact with anyone at the FCC to ask about the process or get help in knowing how to deal with it all. Š Thus though business interests and self appointed "public service advocates" may have access to the process, the public is denied access and thus has no way of making the crucial input that the FCC needs to make regulations that can be helpful. > * What telecommunications services should be > "universal" in the information age? On the Netizens Association list we have discussed the need for the Net to be a means for communication. Thus we have identified text based e- mail, Usenet, and lynx as a basic need to have universally available. It is interesting that the Nov. 1994 NTIA online conference on the future of the Net which included discussion of universal service and access identified a similar set of needs. That is the basic set of what would make it possible for the public to be able to participate in the FCC process if that process was an open and participatory one, rather than an exclusive and closed one. > What flexibility should people have in picking the > services they need? How might Universal Service > be defined so that recipients of the services do not > have to pay to protect certain rights (such as > privacy)? What good is a wire without connections > to the hardware, training, and support that are > essential for effective use? I don't see privacy as a crucial right. I see access as the crucial right, and as someone early on on the Netizens list said, that e-mail is a basic right. The Free-Nets and community networks that have developed around universities and libraries in some areas made a beginning of offering a minimal kind of access and having the help needed for people to utilize this access. Yet these examples have been left out of the Telecommunica tions Act of 1996. Also, universities often have established a way of having computer centers with some staff who are available to help people who come to the centers, and they often have some minimum set of classes available to introduce those new to the technology to how to use it. Thus again, there are models that could be examined. But in the process of this it would also be important to examine the problems that these models have had or that people have had trying to get some basic services in these situations. There is a way to get real information about the problems and needs, but once again the FCC process doesn't seem to provide any mechanism for this to happen. > * What role can nonprofit organizations and > other community-based institutions play in > delivering access to basic and advanced > services? Š It's not clear to me who these nonprofit organizations and other community-based institutions are that are being proposed here. This leaves out the community networks that have developed. It also leaves out academic institutions, such as universities and colleges and community colleges. And it leaves out the experience of the NSF in helping to connect these institutions. So instead of building on what has been developed and learning from it, it is substituting a new set of institutions. In NYC these institutions have not been helpful in promoting e-mail for all and thus to rely on such as the mechanism for the future seems to ignore what the obstacles are. > How could centralized delivery centers reduce the > costs of providing basic and advanced services in > both urban and rural areas? What role could > existing community-based organizations- > schools, libraries, community centers, and so > on-play in managing these new telecommunica > tions centers? I don't understand why this is discussing "basic and advanced services". It seems there is a need for basic communication media to be available such as email and Usenet and lynx, in addition to basic phone service, at a low or minimal cost. Some of the problem with all this is that these questions seem to be proposing relying on these organizations to do something, rather than looking at what has been able to extend access to the online world and build on the lessons. > Also a more complex technological environment > with numerous carriers, providing universal access > may not be enough to facilitate widespread use of > telecommunications. One of the problems with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is that it is fundamentally changing the way basic telephone service is to be provided from a way that has proven to function in the past in the U.S., i.e. a regulated utility, to one that has never proven to work, i.e. the so called "market", a.k.a. the corporate monopolies being given unfettered right to fleece the public for basic telephone service. > The public may need ongoing consumer education > so that individuals and organizations are aware of > the options available to them, are able to make in > formed decisions about these options, understand > the pricing of the services, and know how to get > assistance if they have difficulties with service > reliability, bills, privacy, and other problems. The public doesn't need "consumer education". We need regulation of the monopolies. This is saying the corporate big boys can do whatever they want and we the public need education so we know how to pick among them. We can't pick among them. The whole experiment with monopolies over many years has shown that the public is hurt by them and that is why there is a need for government to regulate the monopolies, not to provide so called "consumer education". > How might nonprofit organizations provide > these educational services as well? So the corporate horror is to be unleashed and the nonprofits are to be given a piece of the action? Instead of the so called "nonprofits" opposing the unleashing of the corporate fury, they are being encouraged to line up for their share of the pie. Meanwhile the public is to be the victim of both the unfettered corporate grab of our communications infrastructure, and of the "nonprofits" reaching for their share. This is what the closed process creating these laws and regulations results in. It isn't that the e-mail, Usenet and lynx are being provided on a universal basis, but that basic telephone service has been removed from being a public right to being a corporate right to make profit. One of the important issues left out in the above discussion of Universal Service from a posting by the Benton Foundation is that the Internet and Usenet arose from a technical and social need. That need was that as computers develop people need to have a means of remote support to get the technology to function. As computers play an increasingly important role in our society, it will be necessary for an ever growing number of people to be able to deal with computers. The technical problems haven't been solved. Those who are working at university or community sites where e-mail or Usenet or WWW are being provided to 30,000 or plus people notice that there are difficulties in making this all work. As the Net is to be spread there needs to be the technical support to make this all function. Since it isn't that the commercial world has made this all work to begin with, it isn't that they can be relied upon to build the future. Thus there is a need for the Net to spread to make it possible for computer use to spread, and there is a need for a social policy and program to guide how this is done. The Telecommunications '96 Law fails to provide for any of this and even fails to safeguard the telephone system in the U.S. It seems there is a need for the discussion of these issues to be opened up among people on the Net, which is one of the reasons for the Netizens Association Mailing list. Š This process was not designed, it seems, to encourage input into it. And if it is so hard to get some clarification about how to make submissions, it is clear that that is another stumbling block in having any input from the folks that the FCC needs to hear from if they are to have the information and feedback needed to make decisions that will be able to be helpful toward making some form of worthwhile universal service regarding both phone and Internet access possible. It does seem that the FCC internal structures, as well as the rush required by the mandates of the law, make the forming of any meaningful regulation providing for universal service basically impossible. A comment on the Netizens list that the whole process needs to be stopped and some form of public process like town meetings around the country set up to take input into the process, is helpful. Responding to the Benton Foundation question posted to the Netizens Association list by Kerry Miller, about "How can the discussion center around the people who need to benefit from the policy most," Peter Moulding wrote, "(My two cents worth) By widespread public meetings in every town hall each with links to the Internet, so that people can raise their hands and their question or viewpoint will be keyed in to the discussion. This is the first step and will take time and organization, so it is vital that the discussion on universal service is not rushed through." (Netizens Association Mailing List, May 5, 1996) I would add that a process like the NTIA online conference on the future of the Net, such as was held in Nov. 1994 about the questions of universal service, and of access, needs to be examined and learned from by the FCC and Congress so that they can structure a process appropriate to the problem. Also, I am sending, as an appendix, a summary I did of the NTIA online Nov. 1994 conference, which was presented as a talk at the N.Y.P.L. and in Canada at the Telecommunities '95 conference and included in their conference proceedings. Appendix: Summary Paper on the NTIA Online Conference [See Issue 7-1] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------------