****************************************************************** ////////////// ////////////// ////////////// /// /// /// /////// /////// /////// /// /// /// ////////////// /// /// ****************************************************************** EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 13 7/23/1993 editors@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- In this issue: Online Congressional Hearings Postponed Summary of New Infrastructure Bill EFF Joins Telecommunications Policy Roundtable -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- ************************************** Online Congressional Hearing Postponed ************************************** In the last issue of EFFector Online (Volume 5, Number 12, July 7, 1993), we announced an upcoming online Congressional hearing to be held over the Internet on July 26 at 9:30AM EDT. Unfortunately, this event has been postponed until October or November. The following note from Internet Town Hall organizer Carl Malamud explains: "I wanted to explain a bit more my understanding of why we are delaying the congressional hearings. Please be very clear that I do not represent the committee and that this explanation is being sent in my capacity as the organizer of the Internet Town Hall. "The Internet Town Hall depends on voluntary donations from a large number of parties. For this Internet Town Hall, we've had a tremendous outpouring of support from groups such as O'Reilly & Associates, Sun Microsystems, Cisco, ARPA, Empirical Tools and Technologies, BBN, UUNET, Metropolitan Fiber Systems, and many others. "The purpose of this broad coalition is to demonstrate how the Internet works and how the Internet can be made to work in the congressional process. We wanted to make the point that there exists a general-purpose infrastructure that allows everything from email to IRC chat to WAIS databases to the World Wide Web to be accessed. "One of the key things we wanted to show the Congress was how audio and video can work over a general purpose infrastructure such as the Internet. Rather than transmit video over the key transit networks, which tend to get overloaded during events such as the Internet Town Hall, ARPA had agreed to furnish the use of DARTNET, the experimental advanced research network they operate. "The underlying transmission facilities for DARTNET are operated by Sprint. In order for the National Press Club, the headquarters site for the hearing, to be part of DARTNET we required a T1 line from our facility to the Sprint point of presence a few blocks away. We had requested Sprint to provide that T1 line and become part of the Internet Town Hall. "In the course of examining our request, Sprint postulated that furnishing a T1 line for a congressional hearing might violate congressional ethics laws. There are in fact laws on the books that prohibit members of Congress or its committees from accepting in-kind donations over a certain value under certain circumstances. Sprint forwarded their concerns to the House Ethics Committee, and then later informed the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance and my organization of their actions. "Needless to say, there are technical alternatives to the T1 line that we asked Sprint to furnish. In fact, a single call to Metropolitan Fiber Systems resulted in a 10 Mbps virtual Ethernet using ATM between Washington, D.C. and Boston which is available for the hearing when it does occur. "Even though the technical issue is solved, there still remains the ethics concern. We firmly believe that a broad industry/government group volunteering time and money to show how the congressional process can be changed to include more input from the general public to be in the public interest. However, we are equally adamant that *ANY* ethical concerns *MUST* be cleared before we proceed with the hearings. "The crux of the issue has to do with in-kind contributions. If you are testifying before Congress, it is clearly allowed to bring in computers. However, a donation to the underlying infrastructure of the congressional committee might be construed as an expense that must be reimbursed by the committee to the donor. The purpose of such laws is to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that the congressional process is clean and not subject to the undue influence of a particular interest group. "We will spend the next few months describing to congressional officials exactly what we have in mind for the hearings. Since this will be a historical occasion, there is no precedent for on-line hearings. We want to make sure that everybody is very comfortable with the issues and that officials believe that there is public benefit in such a demonstration. "I'd like to thank all the volunteers for their time and effort to date. A tremendous amount of behind the scenes efforts has already taken place and we're hoping to salvage some of that effort so we don't have to start from scratch. I'd also like to thank everybody on the network who sent in letters. The Subcommittee and Congressman Markey were truly impressed at the volume and the quality of the commentary from the public through e-mail and are looking forward to a successful on-line hearing later in the year. "BTW, we're keeping congress@town.hall.org open ... no sense in cutting off communication! Carl Malamud Internet Multicasting Service" ******************************************************* Telecommunications Infrastructure Act of 1993 (S. 1086) ******************************************************* Introduced by Senators Danforth and Inouye on June 9, 1993 First hearing scheduled: July 14, 9:30 AM A Summary by the Electronic Frontier Foundation The Senate Communications Subcommittee is now in the process of considering legislation that would eliminate the legal monopoly that local telephone companies have on local phone service, allow any communications provider to offer local phone service, and allow local telephone companies to compete fully in the cable television market. The legislation's goal is to promote increased investment in the nation's telecommunications infrastructure. The bill proposes many significant policy changes, chief among which is a very rapid move toward deregulating the local telephone companies' monopoly on local telephone service. The policies proposed are laid out in broad concepts, leaving the Federal Communications Commission to wrestle with the actual implementation of the policies. LOCAL EXCHANGE COMPETITION One year after the bill is enacted, any company would be allowed to offer local telephone service. Potential new entrants that would be allowed in the local exchange market under this bill include cable television companies, wireless service providers, and even Bell companies outside their current local exchange monopoly areas. Any State laws that would preserve the current telephone company monopoly or limit the entry of competitors are pre-empted by the bill. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER OBLIGATIONS Any company that offers telecommunications service or is interconnected with the local exchange carrier's network has several obligations under this bill. The definition of telecommunications service is somewhat vague, but it certainly includes voice telephone service, interactive data services used to carry information services, and possibly one-way video services such as those currently provided by cable television companies. Carriers' obligations include: 1. Interconnection All carriers that either provide telecommunications service or are interconnected with a carrier that provides telecommunications service must allow other carriers to interconnect with their network for the purpose of providing telecommunications or information services to users of either network. Network operators must provide interconnection under nondiscriminatory terms, on an unbundled basis. Operators must also supply all necessary technical information to enable others to interconnect and interoperate from one network to another. 2. Universal Service All providers of telecommunications service must contribute to the "preservation and advancement of universal service." States, in cooperation with the FCC, are responsible to make regulations that establish the mechanism for supporting universal service in the newly competitive telephone market. The bill does provide, however, that any universal service support should be given directly to "individuals and entities that cannot afford the cost" of telecommunications service. Subsidy for users' communications equipment is also allowed. 3. Number Portability The FCC will establish regulations the provide for "portable" numbers from all carriers as soon as possible. Thus, a customer could switch telecommunications providers without having to change telephone numbers. The administration of the numbering system would be removed from Bellcore and placed with an "impartial entity." INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RURAL AREAS AND NONCOMPETITIVE MARKETS The bill recognizes that in a competitive market environment, rural and "noncompetitive markets" may not enjoy the level of investment necessary for providing advanced telecommunications services. The minimum level of service desired in the bill is that which would "provide subscribers with sufficient network capacity to access to information services that provide a combination of voice, data, image, and video; and are available at nondiscriminatory rates that are based on the reasonably identifiable costs of providing such services." It is not clear that such services would be interactive. State regulators would be given the primary responsibility to ensure that carriers have an incentive to provide high-quality services to all areas. If this approach fails, the FCC is empowered to take action to have necessary service delivered to these areas. NETWORK STANDARDS AND PLANNING All segments of the communications industry are encouraged to work together to set voluntary standards for interconnection and interoperability. If the FCC determines that standards development is not succeeding or is proceeding too slowly, it may set incentives or deadlines for work to be completed. The FCC may also impose mandatory standards if the voluntary process fails. The FCC and the States are required to ensure that advanced telecommunications services are designed to be accessible to people with disabilities. TELEPHONE COMPANY ENTRY INTO CABLE TELEVISION MARKET The current ban preventing local telephone companies from entering the cable television market is lifted, in part. Local phone companies will be allowed, under the bill, to provide cable television service within their serving area, if the service is provided by a separate subsidiary and the phone company does not break any laws regarding improper cross-subsidization between phone service and cable services. By the same token, cable companies that provide telecommunications service must do so through separate subsidiaries and obey laws regarding cross-subsidization. Phone companies are still not allowed to purchase more than 5 percent interest in any cable system that provides services within the phone companies' service regions. CHANGES IN LONG DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS The restrictions on local phone companies against providing long distance (InterLATA) telecommunications service are lifted, in part, by the bill, to enable local phone companies to function more easily in the cable television and cellular phone markets. Bell companies would be allowed to operate wireline and satellite links for the purposes of distributing cable television signals over long distances. Some relaxation of the InterLATA restriction is also allowed to enable Bell companies to carry cellular phone calls from one region to another, and to hand off calls from one cellular system to another. INFORMATION SERVICES SAFEGUARDS Computers, Freedom and Privacy '94 Announcement The fourth annual conference, "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy," will be held in Chicago, Il., March 23-26, 1994. This conference will be jointly sponsored by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and The John Marshall Law School. George B. Trubow, professor of law and director of the Center for Informatics Law at John Marshall, is general chairman of the conference. The series began in 1991 with a conference in Los Angeles, and subsequent meetings took place in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, in successive years. Each conference has addressed a broad range of issues confronting the "information society" in this era of the computer revolution. The advance of computer and communications technologies holds great promise for individuals and society. From conveniences for consumers and efficiencies in commerce to improved public health and safety and increased knowledge of and participation in government and community, these technologies are fundamentally transforming our environment and our lives. At the same time, these technologies present challenges to the idea of a free and open society. Personal privacy is increasingly at risk from invasions by high-tech surveillance and monitoring; a myriad of personal information data bases expose private life to constant scrutiny; new forms of illegal activity may threaten the traditional barriers between citizen and state and present new tests of Constitutional protection; geographic boundaries of state and nation may be recast by information exchange that knows no boundaries as governments and economies are caught up in global data networks. Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 will present an assemblage of experts, advocates and interested parties from diverse perspectives and disciplines to consider the effects on freedom and privacy resulting from the rapid technological advances in computer and telecommunication science. Participants come from fields of computer science, communications, law, business and commerce, research, government, education, the media, health, public advocacy and consumer affairs, and a variety of other backgrounds. A series of pre-conference tutorials will be offered on March 23, 1994, with the conference program beginning on Thursday, March 24, and running through Saturday, March 26, 1994. The emphasis in '94 will be on examining the many potential uses of new technology and considering recommendations for dealing with them. "We will be looking for specific suggestions to harness the new technologies so society can enjoy the benefits while avoiding negative implications," said Trubow. "We must manage the technology, or it will manage us," he added. Trubow is putting out a call for papers or program suggestions. "Anyone who is doing a paper relevant to our subject matter, or who has an idea for a program presentation that will demonstrate new computer or communications technology and suggest what can be done with it, is invited to let us know about it." Any proposal must state the title of the paper or program, describe the theme and content in a short paragraph, and set out the credentials and experience of the author or suggested speakers. Conference communications should be sent to: CFP'94 John Marshall Law School 315 S. Plymouth Ct. Chicago, IL 60604 (Voice: 312-987-1419; Fax: 312-427-8307; E-mail: CFP94@jmls.edu) Trubow anticipates that announcement of a student writing competition for CFP'94 will be made soon, together with information regarding the availability of a limited number of student scholarships for the conference. Trubow said, "I expect the organizational structure for CFP'94, including the designation of program committees, to be completed by about the first of August, to allow plenty of time for the development of a stimulating and informative conference." The venerable Palmer House, a Hilton hotel located at the corner of State Street and Washington Ave. in Chicago's "loop," and only about a block from the John Marshall Law School buildings, will be the conference headquarters. Room reservations should be made directly with the hotel, mentioning John Marshall Law School or "CFP'94" to get the special conference rate of $99.00, plus tax. The Palmer House Hilton 17 E. Monroe., Chicago, Il., 60603 Tel: 312-726-7500; 1-800-HILTONS; Fax 312-263-2556 -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==- Preliminary Report -- Rural Datafication Conference Chicago, May 13 & 14, 1993 Over 200 hundred people from all over the United States and Canada gathered in Chicago last week to participate in _Rural Datafication: achieving the goal of ubiquitous access to the Internet_. The conference was sponsored by CICNet and nine cooperating state communications networks or organizations: NetILLINOIS, INDNet, IREN, MichNet, MRNet, NYSERNet, PREPnet, WiscNet, and WVNET. Two of the represented states (Minnesota and Indiana) took the opportunity to caucus among themselves to further define their own activities. The program began Thursday afternoon with hosted discussion groups intended to discover where we could make improvements in networked information services. Then a panel described current successful projects in British Columbia (Roger Hart), North Dakota (Dan Pullen), Montana (Frank Odasz), Washington, Alaska, and Oregon (Sherrilynne Fuller), Pennsylvania (Art Hussey), and Massachusetts (Miles Fidelman). Questions from the panel and the audience would have kept the room filled far into the night had the moderator not sent everyone out to dinner. The next morning's sessions featured knowledgeable speakers open to interaction with the other conference attendees. Mike Staman set the stage. He was followed by Ross Stapleton who spoke about recognizing that our government is also not well-networked; by Simona Nass who spoke about some of the legal and policy issues of networked communities; by Anthony Riddle who spoke about how the networked information community could build from the experiences of the community access television people; and by George Baldwin who spoke about using networked information to preserve Native American cultures. Rick Gates finished up the morning with a presentation that described his efforts to teach information discovery on the nets using play. The afternoon session featured reports from the hosted discussion groups on agriculture, on health care and health education, on libraries, on post-secondary education, on community and government information, and on K-12 education. Joel Hartman of Bradley University and netILLINOIS moderated. The interaction among the attendees and between and with the speakers and panelists brought the most benefit, according to some attendees. The attendees recognized that we haven't quite figured out how to solve the extensive problems that bar network access to all but they are excited about continuing to identify and work on removing the barriers. A number suggested that the meeting should actually be the first Rural Datafication Conference and offered to host and/or organize the anticipated follow-on meeting next year. Many offered format and speaker suggestions for that meeting and look forward to the anticipated proceedings from the conference which CICNet expects to publish. CICNet is working on a summary of the meeting and working to build a gopher/ftp-archive and printed version of the meeting. We'll announce the availability of those versions as soon as we can. Thanks to all the participants for a successful meeting and to all of you who have expressed interest but couldn't come. ____________________________ Glee Harrah Cady, Manager, Information Services, CICNet 2901 Hubbard, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 +1.313.998.6419 glee@cic.net ============================================================= EFFector Online is published by The Electronic Frontier Foundation 666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 303 Washington, DC 20003 USA Phone: +1 202 544 9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481 Internet Address: eff@eff.org Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org) Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. *This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons* ============================================================= MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we need the financial support of individuals and organizations. If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect to become a member. Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible. Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students and $40.00 per year for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you wish. Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never, under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals. But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you must actively grant us permission to share your name with other groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason. ============================================================= Mail to: Membership Coordinator The Electronic Frontier Foundation 666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 303 Washington, DC 20003 USA I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______ I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______ $20.00 (student or low income membership) $40.00 (regular membership) [ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______ Name: Organization: Address: City or Town: State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional) FAX: ( ) (optional) Email address: I enclose a check [ ]. Please charge my membership in the amount of $ to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Number: Expiration date: Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems appropriate [ ]. Initials:___________________________ -- · Christopher Davis · · · [CKD1] · MIME · RIPEM · ^ if these characters appear as the number 7 then you don't have ISO-8859-1 ^ ^ or something between me and you stripped the high bit on this message. ^ Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253