1996-01-25
Craig A. Johnson
Below is a response from Mark Stahlman to my Net "straight jacket"
piece. I will follow it with my brief response to Mark. This
should be read in light of my clarification of 24 January.
--caj
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 08:40:48 -0800
From: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> Congress Straitjackets the Net - AR article
Craig:
Besides the ebullient prose, your column on Internet regulation seems
to fall flat. Who wants FCC oversight of the Internet? Who has asked
for protection? What entreprenuer would be so foolish as to let the
fox run the chickencoop?
After obnoxious language in last year's ill-fated bill which would
have expanded the definition of "universal service" towards the
Internet -- given to us by the same then-EFF team who worked on
Digital Telephony -- was scraped, I thought the ISP community was
collectively relieved.
The FCC (and the Congress) respond to forces that are in their faces.
Telecom majors are always in their faces. Entrereneurs are not. They
are too busy building their business to go to Washington or to hire
the big guns who camp out on the Commission's lawn. The idea that the
FCC would help the "little guy" in an expanded Internet oversight role
is ludicrous.
Entreprenuer driven industries need to be left alone to grow. That's
the lesson of PC's, workstations, LANs and every key new technology of
the past 20 years. Regardless of what you might think about "free
markets" in other spheres, digital products and services cannot thrive
in a regulatory straight-jacket. Why are you ignoring this
hard-learned economic lesson?
Mark Stahlman
New Media Associates
New York City
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Craig A. Johnson <•••@••.•••>
To: Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail) <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> Congress Straitjackets the Net - AR article
Date sent: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 11:52:44
>
> Besides the ebullient prose, your column on Internet regulation
> seems to fall flat. Who wants FCC oversight of the Internet? Who
> has asked for protection? What entreprenuer would be so foolish as
> to let the fox run the chickencoop?
Mark, you seem to be missing the point. I am not calling for "FCC
oversight of the Net." I am pointing out that access and
interconnection, which was guaranteed in the House bill for
information services, was excised from the conference draft.
Actually, quite a few entrepreneurs are concerned about this,
considering that control over access is even further removed and left
entirely in the hands of mega-corps. If you think this is progress,
fine. I don't.
>
> After obnoxious language in last year's ill-fated bill which would
> have expanded the definition of "universal service" towards the
> Internet -- given to us by the same then-EFF team who worked on
> Digital Telephony -- was scraped, I thought the ISP community was
> collectively relieved.
Probably, but the ISP community will not be relieved to hear that
there is no restraint whatsoever on what or how they can be charged
for local access. Ask them.
>
> The FCC (and the Congress) respond to forces that are in their
> faces. Telecom majors are always in their faces. Entrereneurs are
> not. They are too busy building their business to go to Washington
> or to hire the big guns who camp out on the Commission's lawn. The
> idea that the FCC would help the "little guy" in an expanded
> Internet oversight role is ludicrous.
Again, this is not a claim I made. Yet, the language in the
conference bill which I quote claims the FCC is supposed to do this.
Read it again.
>
> Entreprenuer driven industries need to be left alone to grow.
> That's the lesson of PC's, workstations, LANs and every key new
> technology of the past 20 years. Regardless of what you might think
> about "free markets" in other spheres, digital products and services
> cannot thrive in a regulatory straight-jacket. Why are you ignoring
> this hard-learned economic lesson?
I am not. I do not call for any kind of strict FCC regulation of the
Net or of ISPs. On the contrary, I call for exactly what you claim
is necessary -- leaving ISPs and information services alone so they
can grow.
Your comments are unresponsive to the realities represented by the
article.
Craig
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
For subscription info, archived postings/documents, and other useful
material, visit the CPSR Cyber-Rights Web Page at:
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
