Interesting People mailing list archives
INET'95 panel notes -- "Public Interest Regulation"
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 14:52:36 -0400
From: Sean McLaughlin <seanm () uhunix uhcc Hawaii Edu> INET'95, the Internet Society's annual gathering was in Honolulu last week 28-30 June. Here are some notes from a panel on "Public Interest Regulation" that might be of interest to telecomreggers, alliance for community media, and roundtable folks, so this is cross-posted with apologies. June 29, 1995 Around 1500 folks at the Sheraton Waikiki for INET'95, the air abuzz with limitless opportunity, boom time projections, commercial opportunities, impressive high tech demonstrations, cutting edge applications and developments in software, networking and technology, and enthusiastic discussions of censorship and privacy. The local organizers, University of Hawaii folks, working with GTE Hawaiian Tel and Oceanic Cable/Time Warner did a fantastic job. There were well over a hundred high speed ethernet connected workstations all over the place (four T1 lines). BTW, heard that the Time Warner lines were much more reliable than GTE's. At a panel on "Public Interest Regulation," moderated by Sean McLaughlin of Ikaika Media, a range of issues was discussed. The focus was on convergence of broadcast, cable TV, telco, and wireless technologies. What is the appropriate role of regulation by federal, state, and local governments to serve the public interest? U.S. Senator Inouye's representative, Jennifer Goto-Sabas provided an update on current status of federal telecom legislation. Trend now being against local jurisdictions, public rights-of-way, and consumer safeguards, in favor of free market competition. When asked by an audience member about the Exon censorship amendment, she indicated opposition to such an unconstitutional provision, that it's a political hot potato and difficult to vote against protecting children from porno, and that the strategy is to scratch it in conference committee with the House. Carol Fukunaga, Hawaii State Senator and member of the U.S. NII Advisory Council, gave an enthusiastic appeal for public rights of way and advanced telecom services for schools and libraries. She also described provisions in new Hawaii telecom law (HB471) that was signed that same morning (June 29th) by Gov. Cayetano. Lots of discussion about universal service and making high bandwidth available to rural areas. The concept of providing advanced access at libraries and community centers was promoted as an interim solution for high cost areas. 'Cost-based' prices are otherwise mandated in Hawaii for advanced telecom services. Yukio Naito, Chairman of the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission described the ongoing communications infrastructure docket, and the regulatory push to open competition in the market. He put a decent consumer protection spin on the regulatory world view. Audience members asked how internet providers would be effected by cable TV entry into telecomm market. (Time Warner announced at the conference that they would provide high speed internet connections at substantially discounted prices in the coming year.) Naito indicated concern for anti-competitive behavior, and noted that the PUC does not have regulatory authority over cable TV operators. Sybil Boutilier, director of the CityLink/BRIDGE community networking project in San Francisco, did her homework and had good numbers and current information on the public interest policy issues for local gov'ts and for cable access folks. She provided insight into gathering and organizing all available resources, including information. Dirk Koning's (Grand Rapids, MI) model for a "Community Media Center" was discussed and internet providers and programming service providers were encouraged to work with community media such as public television, cable access, libraries, schools, cities and counties, etc. Some interesting audience/participants...Steve Cisler with Apple, Richard Civille of the Center for Civic Networking, Hans Klein of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilty, Meheroo Jussawalla with the East-West Center, Barbara Kim Stanton of Hawaii's High Technology Development Corp., educators, internet service providers, etc. The issue of federal preemption of state and local jurisdiction over telephone, cable TV, and wireless telecom was discussed in some detail. Panelists (and audience) appeared unanimous in the belief that local community participation is at the core of the public interest. One participant from Venezuela noted that telecom taxes and fees that were collected to advance infrastructure have been used for unrelated purposes, and this has led to a domino effect of telecom taxes at every level of gov't that harms the industry. The question of a funding mechanism for universal service was debated, whether to provide for public benefits through industry specific taxes and fees, or to fund through existing tax structures (income, property, sales, etc.). When discussion went to defining universal service and including internet connectivity, internet providers asked if they would then be obliged to support universal service. [Note: One current proposal in Hawaii is to fund universal service with a percentage of gross retail revenues from telecom providers (two-way).] One of the most enlightening comments was from Naito, in response to a proposal to fund public benefits with dedicated utility taxes, franchise fees and spectrum auction revenues...his thoughtful regulatory reply, "where does it all stop?" Those of us who have been asking where it all begins should take this question seriously, as a major challenge facing noncommercial, public interest media. Aloha from INET'95 Sean McLaughlin Honolulu, Hawai'i
Current thread:
- INET'95 panel notes -- "Public Interest Regulation" David Farber (Jul 05)