[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
more detail on HR 1542 (long)
Thanks, Brian and David, for posting the full Thomas cite-- I ought
to have done that, and I shall next time!
Here's a less "Chicken Little" explanation of the act, from folks
who've studied it far more than I have. I haven't been keeping up
with the IP list (Dave Farber's random news and cites), or I'd have
caught this a week or two ago! I also included some responses
from other folks who posted to that list (archives publically
readable on the web), including Brock Meeks, Bill Stewart,
and Brett Glass.
It's true that to many of us this seems like a preposterous and
ridiculous initiative. Unfortunately, lawmakers, economists,
and policy wanks, largely consider the Internet to be an imperfect
market model awaiting the "maturation" that comes with federal
regulation and traditional control structures. This was clear
back in the early 90's, when I was last attending the Computers,
Freedom, & Privacy conferences. The feeling has only grown
stronger, alas, with the events of the past few years-- the dot
com boom-n-bust, the web defacement wars, the huge Russian credit
card number heist, the Napster/RIAA/DMCA flap, etc.
The time to say "excuse me, I think there are some misconceptions
I could help you clear up" is now, not later-- once something
passes, it's far too late to try to roll it back. And I phrased
the hyper-polite "excuse me" on purpose. The last thing we need
is folks writing flame mail calling their reps idiots and saying
that the Internet doesn't need any government intervention. That
kind of feedback will only firm up the mindset that "it's about
time somebody started cracking down on these people".
So be nice, and save your vitriol for the descriptions of the lame
games that the various RBOCs and their ilk have pulled on you, and
how you or your employer(s) have been negatively affected by the
fun-n-games that the RBOCs have pulled all along to try to weasel out
of Open Access.
Cheers,
_Strata
]Subject: IP: Bells attempt to control the Internet
]Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 07:30:31 -0400
]From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
]Reply-To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
]
>Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 05:22:45 -0400
>From: Gene Gaines <gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com>
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>Subject: Bells attempt to control the Internet
>
>SOS: House Telecom Subcommittee Approves Bill Regulating VoIP Applications
>
>Need your Help to Defeat HR 1542 and Keep Internet Communications
>Regulation Free ( http://pulver.com/hr1542 )
>
>
>Hi There,
>
>The "Tauzin-Dingell Broadband Bill" incorporates for the first time
>Internet applications and broadband in the legacy telecom regulatory
>framework. The bill will make it illegal to offer IP based voice services
>over the Internet and give the Bells hooks to kill off remaining broadband
>competitors.
>
>The US House of Representatives Telecommunications Subcommitte approved "HR
>1542" on Thursday, April 26th. Mark-up by the full Commerce Committee is
>expected as early as Wednesday, May 2nd.
>
>The Internet has prospered precisely because applications remained beyond
>the reach of regulators. The Bell companies have used regulatory means to
>build monopoly advantage in virtually all areas of telecommunications. The
>Bells have so far failed to monopolize Internet applications, such as:
>email, world wide web, VoIP, ecommerce, streaming, peer-to-peer networking,
>and others as yet unknown.
>
>The entire bill starting with its title "Internet Freedom and Broadband
>Deployment Act" is remarkably disingenuous. The bill ends Internet
>freedom and removes any hope for broadband deployment. Existing telecom
>regulations make no mention of the "Internet". The bill which takes
>the form of amending existing regulations specifically uses the word
>"Internet" 50 times. The Bell companies have served and continue to serve
>as the dominant obstacle to broadband deployment. The Bells have
>longstanding efforts to protect their lucrative business selling 1970's T1
>technology from competition. Bell efforts to deploy DSL appear only in
>areas where a competitor exists. Their deployments slow, customer service
>degrades, and prices rise as soon as they weaken or kill off competition.
>
>The provisions of the bill include:
>
>- Incorporates Internet applications in framework established by
> Telecom Act of 1934
> - Defines for the first time meaning of term "Internet"
> - Defines for the first time meaning of term "Internet Access"
> - Defines for the first time meaning of broadband "High Speed Data
> Service"
>
>- Makes voice applications of Internet illegal
>
>- Eliminates limitations on Bell entry into long distance data service
> business
>
>- Eliminates requirements on Bells to resell broadband related services
>
>In other words, it removes all regulatory restraint on the Bell monopolies
>leaving no prospects for competition. No matter how the Bells might want
>to spin the story, actions speak clearly that monopolies produce high
>prices for substandard services. Long distance, wireless, and Internet
>access services have improved in quality with declining prices only to
>extent competition existed. The Bell monopoly controlled local service
>has not improved even given increasing prices since the break up of AT&T
>in 1984.
>
>A year ago we rallied and as an industry and helped stop HR 1291. We can
>do it again. WE MUST STOP HR 1542!
>
>Applications of the Internet should remain unregulated, with no exceptions
>for voice applications and services.
>
>Contact your representative in Congress via the switchboard
>at: +1.202.224.3121
>
>Please visit: ( http://www.house.gov ) and
>( http://www.house.gov/writerep ) to help you locate the name and email
>address of your Representative.
>
>Please let them know that:
>- "The Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act" does neither!
>
>- If they open the door to regulating any Internet service,
>it will set a terrible precedent.
>
>- Using the Internet for voice communications is a good thing and should
>not be regulated or taxed. Consumers will be hurt and only the old
>monopoly telephone companies will benefit.
>
>- Internet voice services are used mostly by low income people for
>international communications, as a substitute for vastly inflated
>international long-distance calls.
>
>-This is a new source of privacy concerns, as companies pry apart traffic
>streams to determine what's "voice".
>
>Please feel free to forward this message to anybody that can help STOP HR
>1542!
>
>Please contact your local media outlets and inform them about HR 1542 and
>that passing it would be a mistake. In order to help stop HR 1542 in the
>House, we need to get as much Local and National attention focused on
>this issue as possible.
>
>[The above from Jeff Pulver <jeff@pulver.com>]
>
>
>Gene Gaines
>gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
>Sterling, Virginia
]
]For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
>From: "Meeks, Brock (MSNBCi)" <Brock.Meeks@MSNBC.COM>
>To: "'farber@cis.upenn.edu'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>Subject: RE: Don't Panic! RE: Bells attempt to control the Internet
>Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 21:09:36 -0700
>
>My Ground Zero column of last week addresses the whole issue of this bill,
>of which the thread below is a part.
>
>Here's the URL: http://www.msnbc.com/news/564512.asp
>
>And the Broadband Played On...
>Bill lets local phone monopoly infect high-speed data market
>
>WASHINGTON, Apr 25th - The Baby Bells have cannibalized their siblings,
>gorging themselves on bull market-fueled mergers and acquisitions faster
>than venture capitalists could write ludicrous checks for ludicrous sums of
>money funding even more ludicrous dot-com business plans. It was all legal;
>all done under the radar, lost in the noise of baby billionaires and
>$3,000-per-head B2B conferences held in Toledo. And it was done in the
>spirit of competition and telecom "reform." And we all got screwed in the
>process.
>
>[snip]
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 4:25 PM
>To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>Subject: IP: Don't Panic! RE: Bells attempt to control the Internet
>
>
> >
> >Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 09:24:28 -0700
> >To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, jeff@pulver.com, gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
> >From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
> >Subject: Don't Panic! RE: Bells attempt to control the Internet
> >
> >My reading of the bill is much different from Pulver's.
> >It doesn't prohibit *everybody* from offering Voice over IP services -
> >it prohibits *Bell Operating Companies* who are currently
> >forbidden to offer conventional long-distance voice service
> >from offering internet-based voice on high-speed connections,
> >which would be an easy workaround.
> >
> >The HR1542 may (ok, does) have other problems, but this isn't one of them.
> >It doesn't appear to prohibit them from offering VOIP over
> >lower-speed internet connections, such as IDSL, modems, or 256kbps DSL -
> >it defines high-speed as at least 384kbps in at least one direction,
> >but Congress doesn't typically think of everything....
> >
> >
> >You can look up the bill on http://thomas.loc.gov - search for "hr1542".
> >
> > (k) PROHIBITION ON MARKETING VOICE TELEPHONE SERVICES-
> > Until the date on which a Bell operating company is
> > authorized to offer interLATA services originating in an
> > in-region State in accordance with the provisions of this section,
> > such Bell operating company offering any high speed data service
> > or Internet access service pursuant to the provisions of paragraph
> > (7) of subsection (g) may not, in such in-region State market,
>bill,
> > or collect for interLATA voice telecommunications service obtained
> > by means of the high speed data service or Internet access service
> > provided by such company.
> >
> >Disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, though I've played a politician on TV.
> >I've got a variety of other opinions about this and current regulation,
> >which differ significantly from the Bell Companies', AT&T's, Tauzin's,
> >Cato's, Nader's, etc., so I'm sending this from my personal email account,
> >not work.
> >
> > Bill Stewart bill.stewart@pobox.com
> >
>X-Sender: brett@localhost
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
>Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 14:51:05 -0600
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
>Subject: Re: IP: Re: Bells attempt to control the Internet
>
>At 02:22 PM 5/1/2001, Matt Oristano wrote:
>
> >Upon getting the e-mail on HR 1542, I immediately downloaded the bill, a
> PDF of which is attached.[deleted djf] Unless I haven't deciphered
> something in it, I think that claim number one below, "Makes voice
> applications of Internet illegal," is incorrect. What the bill does do
> is prevent *RBOC's* from using VOIP to get around current interLATA
> restrictions on voice unless they are otherwise approved to sell long distance.
>
>Not quite. It does forbid them for charging for long distance calls made
>via IP telephony. But it does not prevent them from billing for the raw
>Internet bandwidth.
>
>The RBOCs can thus sell "raw" interstate data pipes to large corporations
>and other customers, knowing that these customers will, in turn, attach
>VOIP units to them and use them to make long distance calls. This is a
>much more lucrative market than consumer long distance, a market
>in which prices and profit margins are falling dramatically.
>
>The Baby Bells will thus be able to tap a huge market which they formerly
>could not enter -- without being forced to conform to the provisions of
>Section 271 of the 1996 Telecomm Act.
>
> > These seems to make sense. As for claims two and three below, they
> are correct. It's worth noting however, that the bill guarantees
> competitors the right to interconnect with RBOC data networks.
>
>True. However, it also strips the FCC and state regulators from preventing
>the RBOCs from making the price of such connection so high as to forestall
>all competition. The right to connect is useless if the RBOCs are allowed
>to price competitors out of the market.
>
>The bill likewise forbids the FCC and the states from mandating access to
>unbundled network elements. This prevents competitors from taking advantage
>of next-generation DSL technologies that require repeaters to reach beyond
>10-18 kilofeet, and hence places large numbers of customers out of their
>reach.
>
>--Brett Glass
--
========================================================================
Strata Rose Chalup [KF6NBZ] strata "@" virtual.net
VirtualNet Consulting http://www.virtual.net/
** Project Management & Architecture for ISP/ASP Systems Integration **
=========================================================================