INET'95 panel notes -- "Public Interest Regulation"

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

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