---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 01:06:12 -0800
From: cpsr-global@Sunnyside.COM
To: "Multiple recipients of list cpsr-global@cpsr.org"
<errors@snyside.sunnyside.com>
Subject: CPSR-GLOBAL digest 322
CPSR-GLOBAL Digest 322
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) a good analysis of the US Bill (@)
by marsha-w@uiuc.edu (Marsha Woodbury)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:15:05 -0700
From: marsha-w@uiuc.edu (Marsha Woodbury)
To: cpsr-global@cpsr.org
Subject: a good analysis of the US Bill (@)
Message-ID: <ad4014f50502100487c2@[128.174.47.12]>
By Andy Oram:
U.S. Telecommunications Bill Fails to Serve the Public Interest
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
A bill that will change the way we use telephones, television, and electronic
networks is currently being considered by the U.S. Congress. The bill claims to
promote industry growth, competition, and technological progress, but may well
simply end up reducing diversity and public debate. It also sets precedents
that we expect to be mirrored in other countries. So non-U.S. residents also
have good reason to be concerned with the outcome of this bill.
There are four major problems in the bill:
1. It allows oligopolies to form that control the information we receive
on radio, television, newspapers, and electronic networks.
2. It allows gaps to widen between segments of society (rich and poor,
educated and uneducated).
3. It censors public discussion on electronic networks.
4. It lets rates rise too fast and too much.
This paper will examine each of these problems, after some introductory
background. We may still have time to make significant changes.
Why is the telecom bill important?
Electronic media are not just another industry like shipping or manufacturing.
They deal with the very stuff our minds are made of: the information we use to
take political positions, the choices we have in educating ourselves, the
cultural resources through which we define ourselves. The struggle over
electronic media is a struggle for our thoughts and actions.
Electronic media cover a range of giant industries, including radio, broadcast
and cable TV, telephone companies, wireless communications and satellites,
computer networks, and traditional news and publishing companies that are moving
online. The category even touches on financial institutions and electrical
utilities.
The industries involved are eager to loosen restrictions on their behavior.
They have poured large sums of money into influencing Congress, and lobbied
intensively for the current versions of the bill: the Telecommunications
Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 in the Senate (S. 652) and the
Communications Act of 1995 in the House (H.R. 1555). Unfortunately for the
public, in removing these restrictions the telecom bill also removes historic
protection for diversity of opinion and reasonable rates.
The intent of the bill
The stated purpose of telecom reform is to increase technology in homes and
institutions. While we definitely support an expansion of electronic networking
(the information infrastructure or information superhighway, as it is often
called) we ask, "What will it be used for?"
Many broadcasting and telecommunications companies seem to view their customers
purely as consumers of entertainment or information. But we want individuals
and institutions to generate content as well as receive it.
We want to see advances in telecom improve public debate on important issues,
provide a wealth of culture, and increase our links with one another. If
Congress takes its role seriously in managing communications as a public
resource, industry growth is quite compatible with universal service and
providing an infrastructure for democracy. But currently, we see this bill
restricting options and opportunities. Let us look at the problems.
Problem 1. The bill allows oligopolies to form that control the information we
receive on radio, television, newspapers, and electronic networks.
The wave of highly-publicized mergers (along with less sensational but still
important takeovers) that have reduced the number of people in control of
broadcasting will continue after this bill is passed. Although the bill
prohibits mergers between telephone companies and cable TV companies, the House
version contains many exceptions, waivers, and exemptions that erode this
protection against monopolies. For instance, mergers are permitted in
communities with less than 50,000 population, and the two types of company are
permitted to share some transmission facilities.
Local telephone companies are allowed to enter the long-distance market too
soon, before competition is likely to enter their traditional local market.
Local telephone users may end up bearing the costs of expansion.
The bill allows cooperation between companies that should be competitors,
assuming that abuses will be stopped by anti-trust laws that are not adequate or
appropriate for this kind of oversight.
In a direct blow to diversity, the bill raises the percentage of national
audience that a single person or company can reach from 25% to 35%. A larger
foreign ownership of broadcast media is also permitted. Limits are removed on
the number of radio stations that an individual can own. The bill makes it
easier for broadcasters to keep their licenses indefinitely, without the
hearings that are currently held. Finally, it gives existing broadcasters a
large amount of unused television spectrum, instead of opening up the spectrum
in an auction.
Problem 2. The bill allows gaps to widen between segments of society (rich and
poor, educated and uneducated).
The 1934 communications act guaranteed universal service, meaning that everyone
in the country could get telephone service at reasonable rates. The new bill
contains protections for rural areas and the disabled, but leaves loopholes in
the universal service guarantee. Some of the advanced information services
could well become available only to affluent people or to institutions in
privileged areas.
Moreover, while there are some sections supporting access for schools and public
agencies, these are vague and need stronger guarantees. Public libraries, the
traditional place where all members of the public can get information, are given
special rates in the Senate bill but not the House.
Problem 3. The bill censors public discussion on electronic networks.
Both houses of Congress have inserted sections in the bill criminalizing a broad
range of information under the claim that it harms children. These clauses of
the bill, while supposedly aimed at pornography, have such vague language
("indecency" and "sexual or excretory activities") that they could be used to
censor literary classics and public health information.
Given the open nature of networks such as the Internet, restrictions on sending
material that children might look at ends up keeping everyone from speaking
freely. The fear of being caught in the law's net will force many networks to
shut down. Thus, the free flow of views we now have on the information highway
could be replaced by a controlled set of ideas dished out by corporate
broadcasters and monitored by prosecutors all over the country.
By approving censorship, the Senate rejected a petition signed by 107,000
Internet users. The House voted overwhelmingly to reject government censorship,
but sections imposing it were inserted into the bill almost at the last minute
as part of a complicated amendment.
We do not dismiss the concerns of parents who want to shield their children from
inappropriate material. The whole point is that each parent defines what is
"inappropriate" differently. There are more flexible and effective ways to
screen what children see, than to have the government impose censorship on
everybody.
Problem 4. The bill lets rates rise too fast and too much.
Cable TV rates for upper tier services (those offered for extra cost) are
deregulated in the bill before there is adequate assurance of competition to
keep the rates down. Cable operators are also effectively allowed to deregulate
any services they choose by moving them from the basic tier to the upper tier.
This would reverse the consumer protections passed in 1992.
In other media, states can let rates for services rise with little
justification. Both the Department of Justice and the FCC are severely
restricted in their traditional powers to review competition and rates.
As mentioned under Problem 2, rates are not regulated for advanced information
services. These services could end up costing far more than necessary, just as
cable TV companies now charge premiums for popular channels. Loopholes allow
companies that own media (cables and phone lines) to charge artificially high
rates to others who wish to lease them, or restrict the people leasing them to
ineffective competitors.
What we want
Our communications channels are a public resource. As the telecom bill prepares
to go into conference committee, we call on Congress to safeguard the public
interest.
* Promote diversity of programming by requiring carriers to provide
services to other companies at reasonable rates.
* Protect the free marketplace of ideas by preventing yet larger media
monopolies and oligopolies. Keep regulatory safeguards in place until proof of
true competition emerges. If telephone companies and cable companies merge
in sparsely-populated areas that lack competition, continue price
regulation.
* Do not raise the limits on the percentage of markets owned by one
firm or on foreign ownership.
* Keep the requirements for interconnection and interoperability (the
ability of different services to use each others lines and identical
protocols) so that users anywhere can reach each other. Ensure that users
can keep telephone numbers when switching companies.
* Reject censorship, which is a big step backward and is totally
unacceptable. Leave it up to parents make their own choices. Strip out
the provisions on "Obscene or harassing use" and "Protection of Minors."
* Ensure equitable access by all segments of the population,
including rural areas, low-income areas, and the disabled. Make
the Federal-State Joint Board overseeing universal service a
permanent institution.
* Maintain reasonable rates for enhanced cable services as well as
basic service, either through robust competition or through
continued regulation.
* Make telephone companies return to consumers some of the savings
achieved through greater efficiencies.
* Preserve preferential access for public, education, and government
organizations.
* In exchange for the extra television spectrum that broadcasters
can profit from, require extra services such as public interest
programming or more diversity in programming.
Redistributing this document
This paper may be freely distributed if kept in its entirety. To obtain it,
access: http://jasper.ora.com/andyo/cyber-rights/telecom.html
or write to:
cpsr@cpsr.org with the subject "US Telecom Bill"
or CPSR, PO Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302
or call: (415) 322-3778
This paper was written by Andy Oram with help from members of
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and other people
in the public interest community. Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility has been in educating the public and the
government for 12 years in the socially safe and beneficial use of
computers and related technologies. Special thanks goes to Craig
Johnson of Transnational Data Reporting Service, Inc. for his
expert analysis of the bill. Copyright is held by Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility.
and as a PostScript file (so you can print and distribute it in
hard-copy form). Contact Andy Oram at cr-owner@cpsr.org or
617-641-1261 (during U.S. East Coast business hours) to obtain
either of these formats.
------------------------------
End of CPSR-GLOBAL Digest 322
*****************************