Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Universal Service for the Net: Why it's a bad idea
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 12:36:19 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 07:53:05 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> Yesterday I spent one of the most interminably boring afternoons of my life in a cramped and sweaty eighth-floor conference room at the FCC. The occasion? A special panel was announcing its recommendations to the FCC on a new universal service plan, as required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The problem was that the Federal-State Joint Board hadn't reached a decision by the time the hearing was due to begin at 1 pm. Nor had they at 2 pm. Or an hour later. In a conference room down the hall, the eight-person board were sweating even more than we were. They wanted consensus. Eventually the meeting began, closer to 4 pm. The board's unanimous recommendation: The creation of a $2.25 billion universal service fund to subsidize schools' Net-connections. The subsidy will range from 20 percent to 90 percent and will be tied to how many kids get tax-subsidized school lunches at each school. The cost will be paid for by "telecommunications carriers," meaning higher phone bills for consumers. (Of course, the FCC's Reed Hundt tried to duck this question, but other panel mambers clarified.) The FCC will vote on this proposal early next year -- and since Chairman Hundt was on the panel, approval seems almost certain. I happen to think this is a bad idea, but saying so publicly almost inevitably results in charges of elitism, "information have-nots," or being indifferent to the needs of our children. Opposing the CDA also left one open to similar charges: soft on porn, high on anarchy, or indifferent to the needs of our children. (I'm starting to believe that more evil can be done in the name of "protecting our children" than with any other excuse.) But just as there are real arguments against the CDA that don't rely on overheated "protecting children" rhetoric, so there are real arguments against this universal service scheme: * With more government intervention almost inevitably comes more control. I can hear it now from family values activists: "My tax dollars are going to pay for porn on the Net!" * Why should a Beverly Hills high school get a discount of 20 percent? Can't they afford to pay for ISDN? * Ironically, the same White House that is pushing this plan to wire schools to the Net is also pushing Bruce Lehman's "NII copyright bill" that will shut the door on schools' ability to _use_ information on the Net. Schizophrenic kowtowing to too many special interests? You decide. * The American Library Association has fought the good fight on free expression issues (as in the second CDA suit, ALA v. DoJ) and on the copyright bill. Yet in this matter, they're the ones pushing for this universal service scheme. Clearly, alliances shift. * With increased taxation of telecom industries -- taxes that could increase constantly at the whim of the FCC -- investors will be wary and money will shift elsewhere. If this happens, it will damage the ability of firms to improve our nation's telecom infrastructure. * Does every student have a _right_ to be online -- that should be paid for by tax dollars -- or is it a _privilege_ that should be paid for by other means? * This implementation of universal service is based on a knee-jerk fear of Internet "haves and have-nots." That's unrealistic. New technologies takes time to filter through a society. The joint board's position ignores history; flush toilets and cars took decades to spread. * Why should universal service be a priority, before books and roofs for our schools? Dozens of schools in the nation's capital were blocked from opening because of, I recall, fire code violations and even non-working bathrooms. If the Clinton administration _truly and honestly_ wants to help children, the president has to look no further than the District's own school system. Don't get me wrong. I agree with the end goal, which is to get kids online. But I can't stomach the Clinton administration's means to that end. -Declan
Current thread:
- IP: Universal Service for the Net: Why it's a bad idea Dave Farber (Nov 08)