US/ND-1: Re: Where To Begin?
Re: Where To Begin?
Ronda Hauben (rh120@columbia.edu)
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 13:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
Responding to the post by Mary Harley Kruter (mhkruter@patrick.mathernet.com)
>In retrospect, how simple it must have been to develop and implement a
>policy of universal service with one clearly defined
>service--telephony--delivered by local monopolies! The task at
>hand--developing policy and rules for universal telecommunications services
>in a yet-to-emerge competitive market of carriers of these yet-to-be
>defined "telecommunications services"--is difficult for me to grasp.
And in fact maybe be an impossible task if that is the way the
issues are phrased.
The issue of universal service has the be the first principle,
regardless of the confusion of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
The fact that Congress failed to involve the public to define
the issues, and that they took on to radically change the law
without the necessary public input and discussion, means that
that input and discussion have the be first, not trying to
implement their reversal of the commitment to universal service
in the U.S.
(...)
>Before one can grapple with the economic issues of pricing and discounting
>a service, it is necessary to define the service. Is there a clear
>definition or understanding of exactly what "telecommunications services"
>means in the context of our discussion? If not, that's where I suggest we
>begin.
The online ntia conference in November 1994 began to define what
should be considered necessary or a minimal level of access to
the Internet for all. That involved having access to
email, Usenet and some text based browser. The reason is that
the communication aspects of the Internet are the crucial aspects
(irrespective of the hype that the offline media attaches to
so called web based home shopping or 500 channel entertainment)
>Another seminar participant suggested defining telecommuncations services
>as a data line in every classroom and library, making it as easy to deal
>with as the concept of telephone access was in 1934. Defining
But it is important not to see universal access to the Internet
as a question of "data lines". This is an issue involving communication,
not transport issues. To communicate via the computer and the Internet
one needs access to a way to formulate one's post, to store it,
and to send it out onto the Internet. There are similar issues
involved in receiving email and newsgroups.
The federal district court decision in the case challenging the CDA
(also part of the telecommunications act) - defined the Internet
as an important new media that has to be understand and the laws
and rules have to be fashioned to take into account the unique
features of this new media.
That is how the FCC needs to start with regard to providing
universal service to the Internet, rather than with some outmoded
view of seeing this as a bunch of "spegetti" as the talk given
at the Internet Society conference in August in Montreal indicated,
was the case.
Our online book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and
the Internet" http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
documents the unique history and communications potential of this
new media and the FCC officials involved with formulating rules
regarding universal access to this new media would do well
to become familiar with this history and impact, and also to
read through the court decision providing an injunction against
Congress's CDA provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
(
>telecommunications service in this singular fashion has merit, but is it
>enough to say data line in every classroom and library? Does this mean
>wired, wireless, or both? How about voice and video?
No it doesn't seem to have merit even with regard to text based
communication - as it isn't merely a question of one having
a data line, but of having an adequate computer set up to be
able to participate in online communication.
Voice and video should be seen as secondary at this point, as
establishing principles regarding how to make universal access
to the text based communication available will help establish
the principles for all else, while concentrating on other
aspects will dilute any measure of universal access to communications
potential of the Internet.
The online NTIA conference discussed these issues and the
summaries in chapter 11 and chapter 14 of the Netizens netbook
should be helpful in building on the principles proposed on those
issues.
>Is it possible to define telecommunications services to schools and
>libraries as provision of a pipeline (of sufficient capacity) connecting
>every classroom and library to information infrastructures? Is it possible
>to define sufficient capacity in such a way as to allow for "advances in
>telecommunications and information technologies and services" as the law
>requires?
But if one doesn't focus on the basic level of access to the
communications made possible by the Internet, one ends up with nothing.
The New York City Public Library has installed computers in its
new business and science site. Those computers make it possible
for people to look at what is available online, but don't make
the communications facilities available to all.
Thus one can surf the Net and find video's etc. but one doesn't have
an email mailbox nor a way to read and post to mailing lists or
newsgroups.
This is the danger of what the new telecommunications act will encourage.
Libraries with computers that look like cable tv's rather than as
the communications facilitiating devices that they are.
That is why there is a need to establish the principles of what is
needed, not try to rubber stamp the vague and contradictory
language of the Telecommunications Act passed by the U.S. Congress
which showed so little understanding or concern for making
the new communications capability of the Internet available to all
in the U.S. (as the law provides.)
> Is it possible to define this pipeline in such a way that all
>carriers--telephone companies or cable companies or whatever company--could
>provide the service in order to take advantage of what exists already in a
>community, building on that to bring the most cost-effective services to
>schools and libraries?
But if this is at a high expense to the home user, doesn't this
have to be questioned? The free-nets or community networks provide
access at a minimal cost - to the home user and those in schools,
libraries, etc.
Why then didn't Congress consider the Free-Nets or community networks
as the means of making access available, rather than asking home
users to provide million dollar subsidies to private entities.
Obviously the provisions of the recently passed act were not adequately
considered and thus this seminar needs to explore the broader
means of providing access.
The Free-Nets in Canada estimate that it costs them $8 per user
per year to provide access to email, Usenet, and a text based
browser like lynx. That includes community volunteers who work
with the free-nets to help make this possible.
It seems that this kind of possibility should be explored in this
online discussion as well.
>I'd love to "hear" some answers to my questions.
>Mary Harley Kruter
I've tried to raise some of the questions your questions raise,
and welcome others thoughts on all this.
Ronda Hauben
rh120@columbia.edu