==================================================== ################ ############# ################ ## # ## ############# ## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ### ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### # ==================================================== Free Speech Media, LLC Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility May 14, 1996 Number 25 ==================================================== 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. Archived issues are now available at http://www.cpsr.org/dox/telecom-post/ ====================================================== TOPICS 1. Copyright - Act Now 2. Universal Service - it's now up to the FCC 3. Antennas 4. Encryption - good news 5. CDA - updates 6. Children at risk 7. The Modem Tax -picks up steam You may have noticed a huge lapse between issues #24 and #25. All the normal excuses apply. I am appropriately burdened with guilt. COPYRIGHT - ACT NOW *This could be the most damaging piece of telecommunication legislation of all* please check the Digital Future Coalition website at http://www.ari.net/dfc for more information The House bill will go to the Intellectual Property Subcommittee tomorrow, May 15 A very divided industry awaits the committee markup of the Senate bill, S1284 and House bill, HR2441. These bills intend to define the copyright landscape of the Internet. Based on a white paper produced by the Department of Commerce, the bills have created a great divide between online service providers who would be responsible for monitoring for infringement and content producers whose work would be protected. In addition, the Copyright Term Extension Act would lengthen the term of copyright protection by 20 years. This is no small issue. Online providers would like to limit their responsibilities to the removal of infringing material when identified by the copyright owner. Corporations such as Viacom and Disney want to place the burden of monitoring all traffic on the ISPs. Libraries fear that they will be left unprotected by language in the bill that would preclude our current understanding of "browsing" and might make access to copyrighted materials forbidden to their patrons. The American Library Association has warned that the bill would: * make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net without a license from copyright owners. * Subject computer system operators, such as on-line services and networks at schools and libraries - to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users. * cripple "distance education" efforts especially vital to rural communities and the disabled * make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information by overruling long-standing Supreme Court precedent. Many think there will be no more telecommunications bills passed this Congress. This bill began with a great deal of momentum. It was expected to serve as the foundation for international copyright law but opinion is now split as to whether it is likely to move forward. Today and tomorrow will tell so vigilance is still necessary. UNIVERSAL SERVICE The period to submit public comments to the FCC and its subsequent reply period on the shape and scope of universal service have ended. The rulemaking issued to the public was 80 pages in length and consisted of 70 questions. Public comments were limited to 25 pages. Slightly more than a month was given to the public to respond to this very complex concept. Nevertheless, the FCC received over 300 responses - a surprisingly big response. Exchange carriers, consumer protection groups, educational association and health care organizations filed comments, many for the first time. This rulemaking included deciding which services should be included in the term "universal service" and the means by which they will be funnded. Unsurprisingly, the Baby Bells would like to limit services to things like access to 911 and directory assistance. Various commentors added things like barring disconnection for nonpayment of interexchange long distance charges, access to essential health and educational databases, development of forms of "community communication", and phone numbers independent of location. The Communications Workers of America asked for touch-tone, access to toll blocking, and initial contact with a live operator. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission addressed the restriction of schools and libraries as resellers of their discounted service. Pointing out that the use of universal service benefits might preclude arrangements that would aggregate service costs with community networks and other non-educational services, thereby preventing more creative solutions from taking place. In fact, they suggest the whole issue should be returned to Congress. There is some risk that temporary favorable arrangements with pricing will build unsustainable systems and expectations in rural schools. The American Library Association pointed out that reselling should not be defined to mean the collection of lab and user fees. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) called for core services to be provided for free to schools and libraries with a discount applied to advanced services. The free services would be limited to classroom use, not traditional phone use. The International Communications Association (ICA) pointed out that performance-based measurement should be used to validate universal service quality. They suggest employing the rate of return regulatory set-up to insure that telecommunication providers maintain adequate service levels. Baby Bells have fought hard to change the base of their fees structures to price caps where any reduction in the expense of delivering service means greater profitability. Traditionally, regulation meant tying profits to a percent of expenses incurred in delivering service. This built in an incentive to provide high quality service and adequate infrastructure. The local exchange carrier association, USTA, is already squawking. They fear they will be singled out for providing discounts while cable and cellular go free. They also want to limit their responsibility for telecom services to outside line connections and to limit this rulemaking to the definition of core services and leave the definition of advanced services to a separate procedure. After studying comments filed by the major telephone companies, several consumer groups concluded that the USTA is considering raising the our phone bills by $10 over the next five years to pay for the implementation of the Telecom Act's discounts. The USTA immediately denied such a plan. More information can be found at www.ckp.edu/info-ren/fcc/telecom.html and www.fcc.gov. ANTENNAS A little nasty corner of the Telecom Act of 1996 gave control of the placement of satellite antennas to the federal government, removing it from local jurisdiction. By the Act, the FCC can preempt local restrictions that impair antenna recaption for direct-to-home video services. Recourse by local authorities is possible but it requires a costly petition process for a waiver. Discussions before the bill passed acknowledged that some local authorities might feel relief at having the troublesome responsibility of choosing between local landscapes and satellite services lifted from their shoulders. However, now that the deed is done, the Conference of Mayors is protesting that this provision creates a "national zoning board". ENCRYPTION - Good News The lengthy battle waged by the public interest community and industry against the administration's shortsighted effort to restrict the export of US encryption products and impose key escrow requirements appears to be on the verge of victory. This battle began with the infamous "Clipper Chip" which would have required the use of an NSA developed encryption algorithm embedded in a chip with the keys stored with two government agencies. "Son of Clipper" was the revision of that policy requiring that keys be stored with certified private entities. Meanwhile, strong encryption products, long ago developed by Americans, have been kept from the international marketplace due to national security concerns on any product using more than 40 bits as a key. The International market is currently flourishing with non-American products. It appears that the light-bulb has suddenly been switch on - at least in Congress. A bill, "Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era Act of 1996" (Pro-CODE) has been introduced in the Senate. It was introduced by Senators Burns (R-MT), Dole (R-KS), Leahy (D-VT), Pressler (R-SD), Wyden (D-OR) and others. This bill will favorably address the arguments put forth by public advocacy groups and industry. It will: * allow existing public domain encryption software to be exported * allow commercial encryption software to be exported if similar in strength to existing foreign made products * Prevent the government from imposing either key escrow requirements or government designed standards for encryption technologies. The Administration still opposes the bill - but this time presidential politics might just come in handy. With the high tech vote at stake and bipartisan support from Congress, the Administration might be forced to concede. Because time is short in the Congressional calendar, rumor has it that the bill could be broken into pieces and tacked onto other crucial legislation to insure its passage. Encryption capability may seem to many to be the stuff of spies. But as we watch the surprising progress of those who would monitor and limit our private email communications - it becomes much more of an issue for the individual. If the Internet is to be allowed to flourish to its greatest potential, all users must have the means to trust that their communications are safe from the eyes and tampering of others and legal transactions must be secure. More information is available on Sen. Burns' web page, http://www.senate.gov/~burns/ and Senator Leahy's, http://www.leahy.senate.gov/ (does this mean Congress is catching on?) COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT updates The Lawsuit Things are looking very positive for the plaintiffs of the CDA suit in Philadelphia. Reports are that the judges have asked telling questions indicating a sympathetic attitude toward those arguing for First Amendment preservation. Closing arguments were heard on the ACLU v Reno case last week. Craig Johnson, an American Reporter Correspondent (the American Reporter is also involved in a CDA suit in New York, Shea v. Reno) reports that the case was clearly made that there was no technical means possible of identifying a user as an adult and one of the judges said "as the most democratic medium that the human mind has come up with yet, a chilling effect is something we have to consider". His reading of the judges reaction to closing arguments showed what close attention they had paid to the real issues at hand. In an article for the American Reporter, he concludes, "In the end the decisive issues were raised in sharp relief by all three judges. If the intent of Congress was to help parents prevent their children from viewing objectionable content, and the technology that is available cannot do that, what good is a CDA? If available technology cannot find a solution for authenticating adults and children, then doesn't the rationale for the CDA collapse? And, if the CDA, with its labeling scheme of "indecency" is overbroad and covers speech which has value, then isn't it unconstitutional on its face?" The logic of the Department of Justice The Department of Justice offered its take on the definition of "good faith effort" on the part of a content provider to protect themselves from liability. Efforts would include listing their site in URL registries of covered sites, registering the site within browser and blocking software, and listing the material in directories of screening software. The Department of Justice suggests that providers of Internet accounts (ISPs or schools) identify that their users are children so inappropriate material passes by the site. There is also talk of self-identification within an individual's address, "tagging" that user as an adult or minor. The assistance these two wrong-headed ideas provides to would-be stalkers of children is scary. It seems that we must keep close watch every minute on every proceeding to insure some common sense is used amidst the amazing ignorance of our policymakers. Rating schemes are coming Meanwhile the "technical solution" that is meant to serve as the protective barrier for children from all that is bad on the 'Net is getting closer to reality. The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS), a technical programming standard, was introduced on April 12 and presented to the Court. This system, developed by MIT and a consortium of software developers will work through a World Wide Web browser (it will be include in the Microsoft Explorer next go 'round). It can be programmed to sift out material deemed inappropriate by parents. Each household will be able to customize their filter for themselves. CHILDREN AT RISK On the issue of the protection of children, other stories are appearing with frightening implications. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has called for an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission of the direct marketing industry. Metromail Corporation collects and distributes personal data to the tune of $200m a year. It appears they also provide information over 900 numbers and online allowing strangers to locate children. They advertise offering "over 3200 innovative sources" for information on babies. Metromail is known to use prisoners to keypunch data. Marc Klaas, father of the murder victim Polly Klaas has developed a Web site on children's protection issues, www.klaaskids.inter.net. THE 'MODEM TAX' PICKS UP STEAM On March 4 a consortium of long distance companies, America's Carriers Telecommunication Association (ACTA) petitioned the FCC to prohibit the selling of products that allow the Internet to be used as a phone. To date the Internet is unregulated intentionally in an effort by the federal government to allow the technology to flourish before it is hamstrung with rules. This has resulted in long distance communication on the Internet to be free of imposed costs similar to the access fees added to the costs of long distance phone calls. The imposition of this kind of cost could make all the difference in Internet usage. There is no way to tell audio bits from any other kind so charges would have to placed on usage in general. This would likely result in usage based fees on a service that is trending toward flat fees and will likely drive many small internet service providers out of the market. The Voice on the Net Coalition (VON), created to oppose this move has convinced the FCC to receive electronic comments from the public. So far they've received about 400. With 80 rulemakings to deal with this year - and the size of the public's response so far, it is reported that the FCC just may slow down on this one and let Congress deal with it legislatively next year.