==================================================== ################ ############# ################ ## # ## ############# ## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ### ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### # ==================================================== Free Speech Media, LLC Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility February 9, 1996 Number 21 ==================================================== Compiled, written, and edited by Coralee Whitcomb Please direct comments and inquiries to cwhitcom@bentley.edu. ==================================================== For more information on Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, please write CPSR@CPSR.ORG or call 415-322-3778. ==================================================== The Telecom Post is posted to several distribution lists and is also available from the CPSR listserv. To subscribe, send to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG with the message SUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST YOUR NAME. Unsubscribtion requests should be sent to the list from which you receive the Telecom Post unless you purposely subscribed to it through CPSR in which case you would write to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG with the message UNSUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST. ===================================================== The Telecom Post is posted more or less weekly. My apologies for cross-posts. ====================================================== TOPICS 1. The Telecommunication Bill has passed 2. Open Video Systems 3. Spectrum 4. Intellectual Property Legislation THE TELECOM BILL As you may have heard by now, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 was passed by the House and Senate on February 1, 1996. It was signed into law by President Clinton on February 8, 1996. The bill passed the House with a vote of 414-16 and the Senate by 91-5. I don't have a list of the opposing reps - but my hero Ed Markey (D-MA) voted for it and publicly hailed it afterwards. Opposing Senators were John McCain (R-AZ), Russell Feingold (D-WI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Paul Simon (D-IL), and Paul Wellstone (D-MN). Remember way back when we thought the a 20% set aside for public use was possible and its reduction to 5% was a loss? We've lost a lot of ground since then. Those of us who have followed the journey of this telecommunication rewrite must keep those concepts alive at the local level. If we are to continue fighting for an information infrastructure that empowers rather than brainwashes, the battleground will now be in hearing rooms of public utility commissions, state houses and city halls - not in Washington DC. It means that we can no longer solely rely on the valiant efforts of those inside the beltway who have gone to great lengths to beat some sense into our national representatives. We, the grassroots, must now beat the drums ourselves. We must identify what opportunities exist to be heard, represent our interests intelligently, and actually show up to testify. While it will take many, many local battles to accomplish what decent federal telecommunication reform would have done in one stroke, the playing field is a little more level with regard to special interests since local legislators seem to care when a constituent complains. We've developed a truly sophisticated online approach to self educate and devise stategy at the national level. In fact, I think we've proven through this fight just how empowering this medium is for renewing citizen action. Our lessons must now be replicated at home. CONTENT CONTROL - was censorship Almost a year to the day after the Exon amendment was introduced to the horror of the online world, very similar language was voted into law. Viewing the Internet as an equivalent medium to broadcast TV, the standard of "indecency" will be used to evaluate appropriate material for posting. Who determines the definition of indecency? We shall soon see. The public interest community will not allow this to go unchallenged. Carriage providers are somewhat protected from criminal liability through a list of defenses outlined in the legislation. But content producers - Time Warner, Disney, American Medical Association, support groups, you, me - are not protected. This topic has been discussed at length and is far from over. There are some very interesting constitutional challenges ahead as those who were swept into cyberporn hysteria by Martin Rimm find more and more of their daily information disappear from the wires. This provision also allows cable operators the right to refuse public and leased-access programs they deem indecent. The resolution of this issue will do much to determine what category(s) the Internet finally falls into - one way broadcast, limited response capability, or full, broadband interactivity. V CHIP Many of us see technological fixes as the obvious answer to the content control question. The V chip will now be implanted into every new TV set sold. The broadcast industry is asked to develop a ratings system in one year - if they don't, the government will. A program's rating must be broadcast with the show. The good news is that there will finally be a means to get the message to broadcasters that the real viewing audience will decrease when parents can effectively filter their kids TV fare. The bad news is that the V chip will only exist in new TV sets and only allow a single rating system. It might be a far more effective mechanism if multiple rating systems were possible so homes could better customize their TVs to reflect their personal "family values". Expect to see a challenge from the broadcasting industry on this. UNIVERSAL SERVICE What began life as the Snow-Rockefeller amendment in the Senate, made it through to final passage. Schools, libraries, and rural health centers will be provided access at "affordable" rates. These rates are to be determined by a Joint Board that will continually review local situations to. The success of this language is due in large part to the heroic efforts put forth by many public interest groups coupled with the lack of fight put up by the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). REDLINING Much concern was expressed early in the game over the tendency of access providers to carve out certain neighborhoods for service due to income levels, race or ethnicity. Some language prohibiting this practice did make it into the bill but one must prove discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc. has taken place. - very difficult to do. MEDIA CONCENTRATION Broadcast TV: No cap on the number of stations owned by the same person. One owner can reach up to 35% of American homes, up from 25% An existing network can start a new network but not buy as second existing network Relaxation of rules preventing TV & radio ownership in the same market Allows TV and cable ownership in the same market Radio No national ownership limits In markets of 45+ stations - 8 can share a single owner In markets of 30-44 stations - 7 can share a single owner In markets of 15-29 - 6 per owner In markets of 14 and under - 5 per owner TV and radio broadcast licenses will be easier to renew and terms will be longer than previously. New entrants need not even be considered unless it has decided not to renew an incumbent licensee. Telephone/Cable Telephone companies can buy cable companies in non-urban areas of under 50,000 Telephone can now offer video services (no longer known as video dial-tone, now known as "open video systems). Telephone companies can chose to be regulated as cable companies or as an open video system. Cable companies can offer telephone services. Telephone companies are required to interconnect with these systems, provide number portability, and other cooperative efforts. Cable regulation Rates for the extended basic tier of large cable companies will be deregulated in three years. Cables systems with under 50,000 subscribers are deregulated immediately. If a telephone company creates effective competition in any way other than direct broadcast satellite, the cable company is released from regulation. Rate increases in the $3-$6/month range are already anticipated. Local Control A little known victory was won by cities in the 24 hours preceding passage of the bill. The right to charge telecommunication providers for the use of right-of-ways was ensured. This gives municipalities the right to negotiate for institutional networks or fees in the same spirit as today's cable franchise arrangements. These will be local fights but provide a means through which public interests can be served. OPEN VIDEO SYSTEMS The new acronym from this legislation is OVS. Should a telephone company decide to offer video, it can choose to be a cable system, subject to cable regulation, a common carrier, or an OVS. OVS status requires that adequate capacity be made available to all that are able to pay and that the carrier cannot discriminate "unjustly" or "unreasonably". If demand is higher than the telco's capacity, it must limit its own selection of programmers to one third of capacity. It must comply with many of the same rules cable systems are required to follow but are free from pricing regulation and the need to obtain local franchises. The Alliance for Community Media won the requirement for OVS systems to provide Public, Educational & Government (PEG) access. OVS is a mixed bag. It includes public interest aspects of cable regulation and nondiscrimination of common carriage. However, without rate regulation, discrimination against the majority of newcomers to the video market is a given. SPECTRUM Quite frankly, I was fooled by the spectrum issue. I suspected Dole's last minute balking at the broadcast spectrum giveaway to be a ruse to defeat the bill. After looking at a variety sources, I developed a theory that telecom reform was to be a victim of election politics. Murdoch was unhappy about the bill - he is lined up to get the same treatment as the other networks. Did you notice how quiet Gingrich got all of a sudden? Last fall he was desperate to get this legislation passed - and suddenly he was no where to be found. Obviously he couldn't reverse positions in support of his pal - but out of the blue comes Dole complaining about the spectrum provisions. It's not like the spectrum issue had been tucked in at the last minute. With Clinton keen on signing the bill, a simple fade to black seems like it might have served a number of Republican purposes. I guess I was wrong. At the last minute Dole agreed to carve the spectrum portion of the bill out for later consideration and allowed the rest of it to proceed to the floor. If you've put off understanding the implications of the spectrum issue - now is the time give it another try. The broadcast industry was given 6 MHz of spectrum with which to make the transition from analog to digital TV or HDTV. Because HDTV was not coming along as expected, the broadcast industry wanted to use that 6 MHz to develop other lines of business. The telecommunication bill allowed this to happen - the "spectrum flexibility" issue. Public interest groups and finally Dole threw up our hands and protested that this was far to valuable an asset to simply give away. Either the new spectrum should be returned for auction or the analog spectrum should be returned for auction when released. The revenue from these auctions could then go to reduce the national deficit or could be used on behalf of the public interest. This could be the last bastion of hope for public lanes on the information superhighway. If we throw our efforts into making this wish known we still stand a chance to preserve a small portion of this infrastructure to serve as a tool of the people. Having Dole as an ally is no small advantage. The broadcast industry will be banking on the American people to find this issue too complicated to get involved. Without our fanning the flames throughout the process, there is little reason to believe the public will see any benefit. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LEGISLATION Copyright and intellectual property laws are topics that typically have difficulty inspiring a great deal of passion in the general public. If we are to stay the course of this increasing complicated telecommunication landscape, however, we are going to need to brush up on the implications of upcoming legislation. In November the Intellectual Property committee of the IITF (Information Infrastructure Task Force) came out with a White Paper addressing copyright issues. This White Paper serves as the foundation for bill currently in committee in both the House and Senate. It is also currently used as the cited authority in the courts even though it is not yet law. And it is expected to serve as the foundation from which international copyright provisions will be developed this year. The House bill (HR2441) is on the fast track and will see floor action in February. Rep. Moorehead and Pat Schroeder (D-CO) are anxious to leave this legislation behind as a legacy as they leave office. The Senate is planning to allow more time for discussion, but that may mean March action. (S1284) Concerns over the approach taken by the IITF have prompted 28 organizations from the library and academic communities to coalesce forming the Digital Future Coalition. DFC is alarmed over the basic premise used in the White Paper and reflected in the bills of equating intellectual property issues to those of a child's understanding of property - the sharing of a toy decreases enjoyment not enhances its value. It sees the challenge of digital format as threatening and something to be overcome rather than as potential for the greater good. Copyrighted works are seen as requiring virtual containers protected through fees and PIN numbers. In fact, the repercussions of the White Paper would make digital information less accessible than hardcopy. As time goes by I'll try to explore more of the specific issues concerning the DFC. Two that immediately come to the forefront, however, is the "right of first sale" principle giving the initial owner of a work the right to pass it along to another and the fair use doctrine, allowing public browsing of copyrighted material, personal copies, and transitory copies. Changes in these doctrines will undermine the very premise on which libraries operate. In fact, the approach taken by the White Paper could make the act of simple browsing libelous. Because individuals would be too difficult to chase, online service providers (libraries, nonprofits, schools, as well as commercial) would be held responsible for their users' behavior. Networks would be required to monitor whatever appeared on their users' screens. Have we just crossed into privacy waters or what? Makes the "indecency" standard look narrow. The White House, both houses, and industry support this approach. The move to bring some sense back into the picture must be made now and must be full force. To get involved and lend your support to the efforts of the DFC, write to dfc@alawash.org or call 202-628-8410.