FC: More on how FCC and Congress will regulate new vs. old media

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

************
Background:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01707.html
************

From: "Singleton, Norman" <Norman.Singleton () mail house gov>
To: declan () well com
Subject: RE: TV-Internet broadcasters self-censoring because of FCC regs
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:19:11 -0500

> Reduce regulation on traditional media, or
> impose it on the new media. What's going to happen here? --Declan]

My prediction is federal regulation will be imposed on the new media by a
coalition of liberal totalitarians and misguided members of the Christian
right. This may even be the issue Lierberman uses to move back to the
"center" having voted with the left on Ascroft and Norton (it appears he
will also oppose Bush's tax cut) in order to position himself for 2004.

************

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 08:27:46 -0500
To: declan () well com
From: Tom Hazlett <thazlett () aei org>
Subject: Re: FC: TV-Internet broadcasters self-censoring because of FCC
  regs

Declan:

The tension between the "print" regulatory regime (laissez faire) and the 
broadcast regulation regime (federal licensing) is a huge issue.  For 
better or worse, it has never been resolved, and now new networks -- cable 
television, satellite television, Internet -- are emerging with fuzzy rules 
as to which model best applies.  In the Turner Broadcasting v. FCC case 
(decided 3.31.97), the Supreme Court was terribly confused about where 
cable TV fit in.  In a poorly reasoned 5-4 opinion (brilliant dissent by 
O'Connor, joined by Thomas, Scalia and Ginsburg), the Court gave cable 
intermediate protection from regulation -- not the full rights of print, 
but higher protected status than broadcasting.  One of the very nasty 
things about the ACLU v. Reno case, hailed as a great victory for Internet 
rights, is that it failed to distinguish how Internet-distributed content 
was distinct from broadcasting.  Until the court either reverses old 
pro-regulation verdicts (like the 1969 Red Lion opinion, finding rules like 
the Fairness Doctrine do not violate the First Amendment in promoting 
government regulation of speech transmitted by radio stations) or creates a 
viable distinction, constitutional rights are tenuous.

I discussed the possibility that regulations imposed on cable would creep 
into the Internet in a recent Forbes ASAP 
piece:  http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/270.html   While the FCC has 
recently, thankfully, declined to institute must carry rights for multiple 
digital TV signals, the issue remains on the table.  And the basic issue is 
generic:  As content naturally migrates from the regulated sectors 
(broadcasting and cable) to the Internet, how likely is it that regulators 
and interest groups will not move to regulate Internet content?

Cheers,

TWH

************

From: "Dave McClure" <dmcclure () usiia org>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: TV-Internet broadcasters self-censoring because of FCC regs
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:07:10 -0500

That's a good question, Declan, that applies elsewhere as well.

We all believe (other than AT&T and AOLTW, perhaps!) that consumers would
be better served by open access.  But how can we justify forcing telephone
networks to be open to competitors while at the same time keeping cable
closed?

To quote you: "But it seems to me that having two
communications mediums alongside one another -- when one is heavily
regulated and the other is relatively unregulated -- is inherently an
unstable situation. It's also, arguably, unfair. So there are two
choices in this situation: Reduce regulation on traditional media, or
impose it on the new media. What's going to happen here?"

I fear that in the current environment, the answer will be to allow all
networks to be closed to competition.  That scrunching sound you hear
is the door slamming shut on 7,000 independent ISPs. . .

Regards,
Dave McClure

[Dave and I generally agree, but we may part paths here. We justify keeping 
telco lines open because of the ex-monopoly status of the RBOCs, but in the 
long run hope that those regulations can fade away. --Declan]

************

From: terry.s () juno com
To: declan () well com
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:26:31 -0500
Subject: Re: FC: TV-Internet broadcasters self-censoring because of FCC regs

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:30:29 -0500 Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
writes:

> to contribute their thoughts. But it seems to me that having two
> communications mediums alongside one another -- when one is heavily
> regulated and the other is relatively unregulated -- is inherently an
> unstable situation. It's also, arguably, unfair. So there are two
> choices in this situation: Reduce regulation on traditional media,
> or impose it on the new media. What's going to happen here? --Declan]

The regulation of such speech isn't the core issue at play here.  It's
whether we respect civil rights across the board, or tolerate some degree
of fraud in defining traits of select religions and cultures to treat as
somehow harmful, for no reason other than harming illusions of
supremacist bigots who just know they must force others to live by their
ways.  Whether it's called "harm to minors" or economic secondary effects
(of what in essence is a religion and culture boycott), government has no
authority to play favorites over such values (even though it often has),
while it's unethical for major corporations to play along in that sick
game.

Regulation of emerging technologies for speech is likely to the extent we
fail to acheive a progressive alternative for better respecting civil
rights of all.  That means actually making no law respecting religious,
ethnic, or political viewpoint ideals or practices, and cutting through
the fraud that some people having hissey fits if they no longer get away
institutionalizing traditional bigotry at gunpoint (which cop enforced
law necessarily is) doesn't justify thinly masked ultimately illegal
discrimination, like it or not.

That means casting Pacifica completely outside the legal system, as
indecency is a biased concept in and of itself, while revisiting Miller
to catch it up to 1868 14th Amendment equality as impacted also by
contemporary national diversity.  It means AG Ashcroft could be liable
for prosecuting towns and states which fail to protect skyclad persons on
Main Street, and friendly fornicators enhancing natural energies in the
local park.  It means treating those who'd oppress such rights as the
criminals they are, rather than pretending our Constitution specifies
Puritanism and witch trials as if the benchmark for freedom of religion
and equal protections of law.

The speech issues are but a mere side issue to the real life ones.


Terry

************

Date: Wed,  7 Feb 2001 20:05:45 -0500
Message-Id: <200102072005.AA620888110 () mail cipherwar com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: " Scully () cipherwar com" <Scully () cipherwar com>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: AT&T  Calls On Regulators To De-Monopolize Bell Companies

Declan,

I'm against monopolies, that's why I found it amusing that AT&T is asking 
the feds to meddle more with the Bell empire.  But Armstrong does have some 
good points.

-Scully

Source: http://www.att.com/press/item/0,1354,3661,00.html

FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2001
AT&T Chairman Calls On Regulators To De-Monopolize Bell Companies
Predicts inaction will result in fewer choices, inferior services and 
higher prices

WASHINGTON ­ On the eve of the Telecom Act's 5th anniversary, AT&T Chairman 
and CEO C. Michael Armstrong predicted a re-monopolized industry if 
policymakers don't insist that the Bell operating companies comply with the 
law and open their markets to local competition.  Calling 2001 a "pivotal 
year" for the telecom industry, Armstrong urged regulators to de-monopolize 
the Bells before deregulating them.

"Five years after Congress passed the Telecom Act, consumers are still 
waiting for a competitive choice in local telephone service," said 
Armstrong.  "And rather than trying to make competition work, monopoly 
companies have been working to make competition disappear."

Although the Act was supposed to end monopoly telephone markets, Bell 
operating companies still control 95 percent of the local service 
market.  AT&T and other would-be  competitors need to lease network 
elements from the Bell companies to provide local service.  But, the Bell 
monopolies use pricing to stifle local competition. For instance, Armstrong 
said that no business can challenge the Bells for local service as long as 
they are allowed to continue to charge exorbitant prices for leasing parts 
of their networks.

Armstrong said there are three critical steps that can be taken to ensure a 
competitive marketplace and end the Bells' stranglehold on the industry:

1. The FCC needs to enforce economically viable discounts for leasing 
network elements.

2.  Rules that keep competitors out of the market need to be abolished, 
such as the current limits on cable ownership.

3.  The playing field must be level and the best way to ensure it is 
through changes in the Bells' organizational structure.

Armstrong called on state utility commissioners to require clear structural 
separation between the Bells' wholesale and retail operations.  Armstrong 
said separate subsidiaries would help assure that the Bells provide the 
same price and service to their competitors as they would do for 
themselves.  He cited Pennsylvania as a model for competition in requiring 
Verizon to separate before it is allowed to compete for long-distance 
customers.

Armstrong pledged to compete for local service in states where wholesale 
prices are realistic and bear some relation to the cost of providing the 
service.  He also warned that AT&T is being pushed out of the market by the 
inflated prices the Bells are charging and may have to pull the plug in 
states where it currently offers local service.

"If nothing changes, we will be forced to shut down our local service 
business in New York and Texas," said Armstrong.  "We lose money on every 
customer we win."

Armstrong pointed to the millions of dollars in fines levied against the 
Bell operating companies as proof of their unwillingness to deal fairly 
with would-be competitors.  For example, he said Verizon admitted to 
mishandling more than a quarter of a million requests by competitors just 
in New York.  Armstrong also referred to a Pennsylvania report confirming 
that Verizon filled orders for its own customers in five days or less 
nearly 100 percent of the time, but 80 percent of AT&T's customers had to 
wait over five days.

"The record of the past five years shows a steady march toward the 
re-monopolization of the industry.  It's a march that needs to be stopped 
in its tracks.  The Telecom Act provides the way.  Now it's up to the state 
and federal regulators to provide the will," said Armstrong.

"Consumers can still benefit.  They can still have wider choices, more 
innovation, and great service at reasonable prices. On its fifth 
anniversary, it's up to all of us to finally bring the full benefits of the 
Telecom Act to consumers."

-------
This press release contains ``forward-looking statements'' within the 
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These 
include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the Company's plans, 
intentions and expectations. Such statements are inherently subject to a 
variety of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to 
differ materially from those projected. These risks include increased 
levels of competition, shortages of cellular handsets and other key 
equipment, restrictions on the Company's ability to finance its growth and 
other factors. A more extensive discussion of the risk factors that could 
impact these areas and the Company's overall business and financial 
performance can be found in the Company's reports filed with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission. Given these concerns, investors and analysts 
should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

************




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------