IP: One last item on the e-rate and FCC chairman Kennard

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
>
> [Recently I spoke with a Manhattan media executive who is a family member.
> He heard FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky speak at an event well-attended by
> high tech execs. The audience reportedly was flabbergasted by the way
> Pitofsky "spoke down" to them, as if they didn't understand their business
> or technology and needed government officials to explain it to them. Even
> more disturbing (I'm told) were the veiled do-this-or-else regulatory
> threats. But because of the FTC's power, audience members weren't exactly
> eager to say this publicly. I will forward other perspectives. --Declan]
>
> *********
>
> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:07:52 -0400 (EDT) 
> From: Charles Platt
> <cp () sedona net> 
> Subject: Kennard 
>
> I just had the dubious pleasure of listening to FCC chairman Kennard 
> delivering a speech at Vortex99, a conference attended by many CEOs of 
> the computer industry.
>
> "We're spending a lot of time at the FCC grappling with policy issues
> relating to the deployment of broadband," he began. What policy issues? 
> Well, the FCC had to decide whether a cable owner should be compelled to
> carry competitors' bitstreams in the interests of the free market. (Does
> this sound a little ... odd?) The FCC also had to decide if regulations
> affecting long-distance phone should be applied to cable, since cable will
> soon be conveying phone calls via IP. (The mind boggles.) Kennard then
> claimed, "we are trying to get out of micromanagement of the marketplace."
> He implied that cable owners will not be subjected to any new regulation.
> But of course he said nothing about the existing regulations providing
> protection from competition that cable companies currently receive.
> Presumably this will continue. 
>
> "We have a duopoly now," he said, referring to cable and phone companies. 
> "But it's better than nothing."
>
> Inspirational!
>
> He finished up by saying that yesterday he cast "one of the most 
> important votes of my chairmanship. Maybe one of the most important votes 
> I will ever cast." This was to extend the "e rate." The tax to support 
> deployment of Net access to public schools. This includes an EXTRA $900 
> million per year, which will be hidden in the long-distance charges on 
> your phone bill.
>
> I stood up and suggested that this might not be justifiable. I use the 
> Web in the course of my work. I live in a rural area where connections 
> are so poor, there's not much point in using anything faster than a 14.4 
> modem. If I am able to do my work with this equipment, why should I be 
> compelled to pay an extra $5 per year tax (along with all other phone 
> users) to give school kids equipment that is better than the equipment I 
> use? 
>
> In reply Kennard said that he could not tolerate the terrible inequality 
> between rich children who have net access, and poor children who do not. 
> "You may be willing to wait ten years for this inequality to be erased. I 
> am not willing." He glared at me. "I guess your premise is that we can't 
> afford to do this," he said.
>
> Of course this is not my premise at all. My premise is that you can buy a 
> 14.4 modem for maybe $30 and you can get unlimited-time net access for 
> $20 a month. Add a second-hand 486 computer for $100, and a school kid is 
> all set. Are we seriously suggesting we need to spend more than $2 
> billion a year to facilitate this, because public schools can't afford it?
>
> Alas there is a no-followup-questions rule here, so I was not able to 
> state this. Kennard was able to insinuate that I am a borderline racist 
> (!) before he went on to take the next question. (Kennard himself appears 
> to be half black, and he referred to his wife attending a "negro school" 
> in the South and being deprived of proper textbooks.)
>
> More and more, when I am confronted with any political animal, I feel 
> almost unconmtrollable rage. The self-righteousness is intolerable as 
> they tell me how "we" should spend "our" money (translation: MY money).
>
> Oh well.
>
> --CP
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
> To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text:
> subscribe politech
> More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------