Monster Media 1993 #2/Image.iso/text/tele_acc.zip/FRONTIER.TXT

Text File | 1993-06-04 | 21KB | 413 lines

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc.
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Suite  303
Washington.   DC   20003
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]


Toward A New Public Interest Communications

Policy Agenda for the Information Age

A Framework for Discussion

June 1, 1993


I.     Introduction

     For over a decade techno-prophets have been predicting the
convergence of telephone, computer and television technologies.
In this world, endless information would be available at the touch
of a button and many of life's chores would be simplified by
artificially-intelligent personal assistants.  The prophesied
results were said to be everything from a newfound global village
enabled by democratized communications tools, to an Orwellian
multimedia, mind-numbing, thought-controlling, consumer
culture/police-state gone wild.  In the past, discussions of this
convergence has been relegated to the musings of futurists and the
arcana of telecommunications regulatory policy.  This year,
however, the grand convergence is evident both on the front pages
of national magazines and newspapers, as well as in the White
House.  Telecommunications infrastructure policy -- the management
of this grand convergence -- has arrived as a mainstream policy
issue.

     Most telling of all, large investments are now being made in
order to take advantage of business opportunities arising out of
the convergence of television, computers, and telecommunications.
Despite existing regulatory barriers, a number of major
corporations have undertaken major initiatives which blur the
traditional media distinctions.  Regional Bell Operating
Companies, including Bell Atlantic and US West, have announced
multibillion dollar infrastructure investment plans which position
them to expand from the telecommunications market to the video
entertainment market.  By the same token, cable television
companies are crossing over from their traditional domain toward
being able to offer telecommunications services.  Early in 1993,
Time-Warner announced plans to offer interactive services and
connections directly to long distance telephone networks for
residential customers in Orlando, FL.  Six cable television
companies also recently joined forces to purchase a company called
Teleport, which competes directly with local telephone companies.
And finally, US West announced in May 1993 that it will purchase a
multi-billion dollar stake in Time-Warner Entertainment Partners.

     All of these developments are being watching with great
interest by Congress and the Administration.  No longer is
telecommunications policy a matter of sorting out the special
interests of newspaper companies, telephone companies, and cable
companies.  Rather it has been re-christened as "information
infrastructure" policy.  As such, it is recognized to have major
implications for domestic economic development, global
competitiveness, and science and technology policy.  The ultimate
symbol of this increased interest in telecommunications policy is
the Vice President's frequent declaration that the Clinton
Administration is committed to promoting the creation of
electronic superhighways in the 1990s, just as the Vice
President's father oversaw the construction of the interstate
highway system in the 1950s.

     Talk of superhighways and potential for new economic growth,
though, may lead some to forget that in shaping information
infrastructure policy, we must also be guided by core
communications policy values.  The "highways" that are being built
here are for speech as well as for commerce.  In order to preserve
the democratic character of our society as we move into the
Information Age, these key public interest communications policy
goals must be kept at the forefront:

*         Diversity of Information Sources: Creating an
          infrastructure that promotes the First Amendment goal of
          availability of a maximum possible diversity of view
          points;

*         Universal Service: Ensuring a minimum level of
          affordable service to all Americans;

*         Free Speech and Common Carriage: Guaranteeing
          infrastructure access regardless of the content of the
          message that the user is sending;

*∙        Privacy: Protecting the security and privacy of all
          communications carried over the infrastructure, and
          safeguarding the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of
          all who uses the information infrastructure;

*         Development of Public Interest Applications and
          Services:  Ensuring that public interest applications
          and services which are not produced by the commercial
          market are available and affordable.

     Advances in telecommunications have tremendous potential to
support all of these important communications policy values.  In
many cases, inexpensive equipment exists which could give
individuals and small organizations a degree of control over
information that has never before been possible.  However, if not
implemented with core communications values in mind, the
technology will do more harm than good.  The convergence of
historically separate communications media poses a major challenge
to the public interest community.  The Electronic Frontier
Foundation hopes to play a role with other public interest
organizations in realizing the democratic potential of these new
technologies.

II.  Framing Public Interest Communications Policy Goals For The
     Information Age: What is at Stake in the Development of the
     Information Infrastructure

     A.   Diversity of Information Sources

     Aside from the universal service guaranty, the driving
communications policy value for the last fifty years has been
promotion of the maximum diversity of information sources, with
the greatest variety of view points.  Most agree that from a
diversity standpoint, the ideal environment is the print medium.
Compared to both the broadcast and cable television arenas, print
is the vehicle for the greatest diversity of viewpoints and has
the lowest publication and distribution costs.  Despite the
regulatory steps taken to promote diversity in the mass media, the
desired variety of opinion and information has never been fully
achieved.

     The switched nature of advanced digital network technology
offers to end the spectrum and channel scarcity problem
altogether.  If new network services are deployed with adequate down-
 and up-stream capacity, and allow point-to-point communication,
then each user of the network can be both an information consumer
and publisher.  Network architecture which is truly peer-to-peer
can help produce in digital media the kind of information
diversity that only exists today only in the print media.  If
network access is guaranteed, as is the case in the public
switched telephone network, the need for content providers to
negotiate for air time and channel allocation will be eliminated.
Even in a truly interactive network environment the government
will still need to provide financial support to ensure that public
interest programming is produced and available, but channel set-
asides per se will not be necessary.

     B.   Universal Service: From Plain Old Telephone Service to
          Plain Old
               Digital Service

     The principle of equitable access to basic services is an
integral part of nation's public switched telephone network.  From
the early history of the telephone network, both government and
commercial actors have taken steps to ensure that access to basic
voice telephone services is affordable and accessible to afl
segments of society.  Since the divestiture of AT&T, many of the
internal cross-subsidies that supported the "social contract" of
universal service have fallen away.  Re-creation of old patterns
of subsidy may no longer be possible nor necessarily desirable,
but serious thought must be given to sources of funds that will
guaranty that the economically disadvantaged will still have
access to basic communications services.

     The universal service guaranty in the Communications Act of
1934 has, until now, been interpreted to mean access to "plain old
telephone service" (POT'S).  In the Information Age, we must
extend this guaranty to include "plain old digital service."
Extending this guaranty means ensuring that new basic digital
services are affordable and ubiquitously available.  Equity and
the democratic imperative also demand that these services meet the
needs of people with disabilities, the elderly, and other groups
with special needs.  Failure to do so is sure to create a society
of "information haves and have nots."

     C Free Speech: Common Carriage

     In a society which relies more and more on electronic
communications media as its primary conduit for expression, fun
support for First Amendment values requires extension of the
common carrier principle to all of these new media.  Common
carriers are companies which provide conduit services for the
general public.  The common carrier's duties have evolved over
hundreds of years in the common law and later in statutory
provisions.  Common carriers have a duty to:

     *provide services in a non-discriminatory manner at a fair
     price, *interconnect with other carriers, and *provide
     adequate services

The public must have access to digital data transport services,
such as ISDN and ADSL, which are regulated by the principles of
common carriage.

     Re-shaping common carriage duties for new media environments
is of critical importance as mass media and telecommunications
services converge and recombine in new forms.  Telephone
companies, the traditional providers of common carriage
communications services, are moving closer and closer to providing
video and other content-based services.  By the same token, cable
television companies, which have functioned as program providers,
are showing great interest in offering telecommunications
services.  In what is sure to be an increasingly complex
environment, we must ensure that common carriage transport is
available to those who want it.

     Unlike arrangements found in many countries, our
communications infrastructure is owned by private corporations
instead of by the government.  Therefore, a legislatively imposed
expanded duty of common carriage on public switched telephone
carriers is necessary to protect free expression effectively.  A
telecommunications provider under a common carrier obligation
would have to carry any legal message regardless of its content
whether it is voice, data, images, or sound.  For example, if full
common carrier protections were in place for all of the conduit
services offered by the phone company, the terminations of
"controversial" 900 services such as political fundraising would
not be allowed, just as the phone company is now prohibited by the
Communications Act from discriminating in the provision of basic
voice telephone services.  As a matter of law and policy, the
common carriage protections should be extended from basic voice
service to cover basic data service as well.

     D. Privacy

     With dramatic increases in reliance on digital media for
     communications, the need for comprehensive protection of
     privacy in these media grows.  The scope of the emerging
     digital communications revolution poses major new challenges
     for those concerned about protecting communications privacy.
     Communication which is carried on paper through the mail
     system, or over the wire-based public telephone network is
     relatively secure from random intrusion by others.  But the
     same communication carried, for example, over a cellular or
     other wireless communication system, is vulnerable to being
     intercepted by anyone who has very inexpensive, easy-to-
     obtain scanning technology.  As such, access to robust,
     affordable encryption technology will be critical to enable
     people to protect their own privacy.  Government controls on
     encryption systems, whether for law enforcement or national
     security reasons, raise grave constitutional issues and could
     undermine individuals' ability to protect the privacy of
     personal information and communications.


III.   Public Policy Options

     One clear sign of progress in the communications policy
debate is that there is widespread consensus that something must
be done about infrastructure policy.  Here we consider three key
policy options in relation to the core policy goals which have
been outlined above.

     A. Long Term Modernization Through Regulatory Relief

     One technology has, over time, become synonymous with
multimedia information and entertainment services: fiber optics.
Infrastructure proposals often highlight fiber optics as a key
component.  Yet the cost of fiber is high.  As a result policy
makers are considering incentives to encourage industry to make
this large investment.  Many suggest, for example, that the
relaxation of cable-telco cross-ownership ban and elimination of
InterLATA line-of-business restrictions will promote long term
investment in a broadband, fiber optic infrastructure and lead to
a greater variety of services for consumers.  Rep. Rick Boucher
(D-VA) and Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) recently introduced HR. 1504,
which would lift the cable-telco cross-ownership ban.

     The key question to ask in evaluating such proposals is
whether the regulatory relief requested by the Regional Bell
companies will actually further the communications policy goals
such as diversity, common carriage and universal service.
Supporters of sweeping regulatory relief, or policy to promote
long-term infrastructure investment, however, often make the
mistake of making a particular technology a policy goal in itself.

     In evaluating these proposals, it is important to recognize
exact what fiber offers and what it doesn't.

          Fiber optics is not necessary to deliver digital,
          information age services.

     Fiber optic cable is a major technological advance that
enables many exciting new services and applications.  However, it
is not necessary to install fiber optic cable in order to offer
advanced information services.  Such services can also be carried
over copper cable or other transmission technology such as
wireless digital radio networks.

     o  Fiber optics does not guaranty interactive services

     Fiber enables the transport of vast quantities of information
from one point to another, over very long distances.  The primary
distinction between fiber and copper cable is in the amount of
data that can be carried and the distance between endpoints.
However, the raw capacity of fiber does not guaranty that it will
be possible to run interactive services, such as educational,
health care, information, or telecommuting applications.
Interactive services require network switching in addition to
fiber optic cable.

     Thus, while network evolution towards fiber appears likely,
the availability of fiber will not ensure that public interest
needs are met, nor must we wait for ubiquitous fiber to deliver
public interest benefits to users.  For example, simply allowing
local telephone companies into the cable television market may do
noting more than create a second cable television network.While
prices for cable service might fall as a result, the network would
be no more open or diversity promoting than is the cable network
against which it is competing unless switching capacity is also
provided.  As policy makers consider long term changes, careful
thought should be given to the network functionality likely to
result, not just the type of technology that will be put into the
network.

     B.   The NREN as Government-funded National Information
               Infrastructure?

     Some suggest that the NREN will gradually evolve to be the
whole national information infrastructure.  The NREN, and the
Internet as a whole, will no doubt continue to be a source of
innovation and will remain an important information resource for
its users.  As such it is a vital part of the emerging national
information infrastructure.  However, it is only one part of the
growing network of networks.  Two key factors raise questions as
to whether the NREN is suited to become the whole infrastructure:

     1.   The government cannot afford to build an entire national
          information infrastructure.  Moreover, ignoring the
          investments already made by the communications industry
          would be a massive waste of resources.

     2.   The prospect of a government-run communications
          infrastructure raises serious First Amendment concerns.
          Rust v. Sullivan affirms that the federal government can
          establish content-based restrictions on speech when the
          speech takes place in federally-funded facilities.  The
          new electronic public forum will be the site of
          political, cultural, and personal discourse.  Subjecting
          all electronic speech to government control would be
          antithetical to an of our political traditions.

Though the NREN will not and should not be the whole
infrastructure, it does serve a vital role in serving the research
and education community, and promoting public access to
information.


     C The Open Platform Approach: Near Term Public Infrastructure
           Modernization

     EFF believes that the way to promote diversity, common
carriage, and an expanded notion of universal service is to start
off the Information Age by making digital service widely available
and affordable for all Americans.  Digital service will be an Open
Platform that will help to realize the democratic potential of
Information Age technology.  Open Platform service will enable the
broadest possible segments of the population to participate fully
in the information and communication revolution that is occurring.
What is critical is that individuals and small organizations be
able to participate both as a information user and publisher.

     Federal Policy Initiatives

     In order to make digital services uniformly available
throughout the country, Congress ought to set guidelines for
tariffing, deployment, and interoperability of digital services.
While some Regional Bell Operating Companies are considering
making digital connectivity available to the mass market, others
have failed to offer the benefits of digital service to their
customers altogether.  At a federal level, Congress can declare
that affordable, widely available digital service is an important
national goal.  While respecting State's traditional prerogative
in setting local service prices, the Congress and the FCC have an
important role in insuring that services reach the entire
population in an equitable fashion.  Rep. Ed Markey will be
introducing legislation to this end in the coming months.

     State Policy Initiatives

     State policy makers, both regulators and legislators, also
have a vital role in making digital service available to the
residents of their states.  The success or failure of digital
services for the mass market (both residential and small business)
will be determined by factors which are within the control of the
state policy maker: mass market pricing and widespread deployment.


     Open Platform tariffs are by no means the final goal of
infrastructure policy, but they are a vital first step.  Waiting
for the market to decide which services to offer,, or for the
ubiquitous deployment of interactive broadband services in ten to
thirty years, would be a fatal mistake for those who care about
diversity, access and free speech.  If we wait, these bedrock
principles will be lost in a sea of video-on-demand and home
shopping.

V.   Conclusion

The rapid pace of technology and market developments poses a great
challenge to the public interest community.  EFF has spent the
last year studying infrastructure issues and developing positions
which are the basis of our advocacy efforts.  Though we believe
that we have made some important contributions to the debate, our
views form but one part of the overall public interest agenda.  We
write this paper in order to open up a dialog with other
organizations which are concerned about the communications policy
goals outlined here.  Our hope is that such a dialog can help us
an move toward a set of common goals and find avenues for
collective advocacy.