EFF Summary of Public Interest Summit

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

EFF SUMMARY


PUBLIC INTEREST SUMMIT: SHAPING THE NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE


Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, DC
MARCH 29, 1994




OPENING REMARKS


Welcoming remarks were delivered by Andrew Blau from the Benton Foundation,
who expressed gratitude to the program sponsors and planning committee.
Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown delivered pre-taped opening remarks on
video, because he was in Russia at the time of the conference.  Secretary
Brown, who chairs the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF),
restated the Administration's commitment to universal service, emphasizing
that no one should be left standing on the side of the road.




PUBLIC INTEREST SUMMIT PANELS


DELIVERING THE GOODS: MEETING PUBLIC NEEDS?


Moderator: V. Lane Rawlins, President, Memphis State University
C. Everett Koop, Senior Scholar, Koop Institute
David Lytel, White House Office of Science and Technology
Jean Armour Polly, NY State Research and Education Network
Anthony Riddle, Chair, Alliance for Community Media
Connie Stout, Director, Texas Education Network
Patricia Waak, National Audubon Society


This panel discussed the ways in which the National Information
Infrastructure (NII) can improve education, health care, and the
environment by enhancing communication and decisionmaking within
communities, as well as within state, national, and international
boundaries.  There was strong consensus on the panel and from the floor
that teaching people to use the tools is as important as building the
tools.  Choosing the right regulatory model is a difficult issue, but David
Lytel said that the Clinton Administration is committed to making sure that
citizens can be information producers, as well as information consumers.
He stated that the challenge is to make sure that the NII becomes more than
just a large pipe for television reruns and movies, home shopping,
electronic games, and gambling.  The architecture of the NII must guarantee
that needs outside the commercial marketplace, including cultural and other
public benefits, are met.




A LINK INTO EVERY HOME: HOW, WHAT, AND WHEN?


Moderator: Allen Hammond, Director, Communications Media Center, NY Law School
Ron Binz, Director, Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel
Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America
Deborah Kaplan, Vice President, World Institute on Disability
Robert Larson, President/General Manager, WTVS-Detroit
Michael Nelson, White House Office of Science and Technology
Andrew J. Schwartzman, Executive Director, Media Access Project


The panel explored the challenges in applying the concept of universal
service to the NII to ensure access for everyone.  The panelists discussed
universal service funding mechanisms, the role of government in supporting
a diversity of voices, and the need for public interest advocacy before the
Federal Communications Commission.  Mike Nelson said that the
Administration's model for the NII is the Internet, and its goals for
universal service are to provide subsidies to enable open access for as
many people as possible, to adopt pro-competitive policies, to require
nondiscriminatory prices, to prohibit network providers from controlling
information, and to enhance interoperability and interconnection
requirements.


Addressing the difference between the common carriage regime for telephone
companies and the market/consumer model for the cable industry, Andrew
Schwartzman argued for the common carriage model instead of the cable
model, because the cable model is passive and connotes people receiving
only limited services such as video-on-demand and home shopping.  Common
carriage would help NII users to be speakers as well as listeners, and
producers as well as consumers.  Ron Binz offered the phrase "Information
Superhypeway" and cautioned that a fully competitive telecommunications
industry is not right around the corner.  The key decision, according to
Binz, is whether to rely on taxing voice communications service to fund the
NII.  Binz also characterized as "industry propaganda" the view that
subsidies should be provided to enable access for as many people as
possible.  Mark Cooper challenged the widely cited statistic that 93% of
the population enjoys telephone service.  Instead, he stated that the 7%
"unsolution" is really closer to 30%, which includes individuals with
disabilities and low incomes.  He argued that those who cannot afford
access to the NII will be assured access if everyone who can afford to use
the NII is required to pay for it.


Deborah Kaplan took the discussion beyond the issue of funding to the issue
of access.  She argued that the 7% of the population that is underserved is
a product of the market model.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and
policy input from low-income people is essential.  She raised the concern
that access to the NII for disabled individuals may be uniquely difficult,
especially if the NII architecture is modeled on voice-based telephone
service.  Schwartzman emphasized the First Amendment dimension of universal
service, including artistic speech, and the need to protect against any
form of censorship.  Bob Larson explained how public broadcasting's role in
promoting local service responsibilities and public service duties is a
model for what the NII can do to marshall local resources.  The NII could
augment public broadcasting's efforts aimed at reducing violence and
improving the well-being of young people.




SPEECH BY VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE


The Vice President was introduced by Peter Goldmark, President of The
Rockefeller Foundation, who emphasized the historical role of the NII in
charting the future of democracy.  Vice President Gore stated the
Administration's commitment to wiring every classroom, clinic, and library
in the United States to the NII within the next five years.  Every person
will benefit from the NII.  However, while we already have the technology,
we do not yet have the infrastructure.  The National Telecommunication and
Information Adminstration in the Department of Commerce recently announced
the availability of funding for some of the aspects of the NII and already
have received 3,500 inquiries.


Reforming telecommunications law is essential.  Universal service means
lower prices for everyone.  Open access means receiving and sending
information across the NII.  The future will look like the Internet if we
make sure the NII is open and accessible like the personal computer.


Networked communities are consistent with our democratic form of government
and distinguish it from  communism and fascism.  We need to increase access
to government information to enhance community decisionmaking.  We are
increasing the availability of government information.  SeniorNet is
providing services to senior citizens.  The Environmental Protection
Agency's toxics release inventory is empowering citizens to ameliorate
environmental hazards in their communities.  HUD has begun to put
information about fair housing and fair lending on the net.  We can empower
our representative democracy.  People closest to the problems are the
smartest about the solutions.




BUILDING COMMUNITIES AND THE ECONOMY


Moderator: Linda Tarr-Whelan, President and Exec. Dir., Center for Policy
Alternatives
Morton Bahr, President, Communications Workers of America
Cushing Dolbeare, President, Low-Income Housing Coalition
Thomas Kalil, National Economic Council for Science and Technology
Anthony Pharr, Counsel, Office of Communication, United Church of Christ
Diana Roose, Research Director, National Association of Working Women
Randy Ross, Vice President, American Indian Telecommunications


After brief introductory statements, the panelists discussed what the NII
means for generating jobs and economic benefits.  The goal is to use the
NII to create better, high wage jobs.  Development of information policy
must make sure that the NII is a tool for community planning.
Telecommuting will have an impact on the national economy by enabling
people to live and work anywhere, including in other countries.  We should
use the technology that exists now in order to do the kind of planning
needed to make sure the new technologies produce advances in our national
economy.




MAKING DEMOCRACY WORK


Moderator:  Sonia Jarvis, Exec. Dir., National Coalition for Black Voter
Participation
Brian Banks, Policy Research Action Group
Jim Butler, Director, AARP/VOTE, American Association of Retired Persons
Mitchell Kapor, Chair, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Sally Katzen, Chair, Information Policy Committee, IITF
Ralph Nader, Center for the Study of Responsive Law
Nadine Strossen, ACLU


This panel addressed whether the NII can support increased civic
participation, free speech and assembly, and privacy.  Brian Banks stressed
the NII's ability to bring about a reconfiguration of hierarchies; enhanced
citizen participation in the decision making process would be the most
fundamental change.  Jim Butler revisited the NII's potential for community
development, educational opportunity, and access to government databases.
Mitchell Kapor focused on the potential for achieving the Jeffersonian
principles of individual liberty and decentralization.  The Internet has
enormous democratic potential, but it is not easy to use.  The emphasis
should be on the Internet and interactivity, not on the Information
Superhighway and Hollywood reruns. Everyone should become hands-on, start
learning and interacting, and ask for help when needed.  The networks
should be easy to use, but we cannot wait for a national handout.


Sally Katzen stressed the goal of economic sustainable development.  The
government should not be solely responsible for the nation's information
sytems.  The toxics release inventory is a model that has worked well.
Ralph Nader, who still uses a manual Underwood typewriter, questioned what
all this new technology will do about such problems as violence in the
schools.  Will it just put more people into the Office of Management and
Budget and lead to mega-billion dollar overselling of unused software?
While there needs to be a window on government databases, there is not
reason for them to be overprivatized or overmonopolized.  Educational
efforts, like liberal arts-type courses, could motivate people to
participate.  Nadine Strossen argued that the common carriage model is
important to ensure universal access--but security and privacy are equally
important.  We have to make certain that there are no censorial controls
over content.  All of us must lobby for privacy protection -- and we must
fight the clipper chip.