Subject: Rep. White tells FCC to maintain Internet exemption (fwd)
patricem@RTK.NET
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:06:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:06:32 -0500 From: patricem@RTK.NET Subject: Rep. White tells FCC to maintain Internet exemption (fwd) To: roundtable@cni.org References: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980409075451.17222C-100000@well.com> Message-Id: <Chameleon.892138122.patrice@patrice.rtknet.org>
FYI. Forwarded from POLITECH; please excuse any duplicate postings.
Patrice
-------------------------------------
Patrice McDermott
patricem@rtk.net
Date: 04/09/98
Time: 12:06:32
-------------------------------------
------------------------
April 8, 1998
The Honorable William Kennard
The Honorable Susan Ness
The Honorable Harold Furchtgott-Roth
The Honorable Michael Powell
The Honorable Gloria Tristani
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Kennard and Commissioners Ness, Furchtgott-Roth, Powell,
and Tristani:
Having spent more than two years working to raise awareness of
Internet issues in Congress, I would like to share my thoughts on the
upcoming report the Commission must release pursuant to Section 623 of
the FY1998 Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Act. This report
must include a review of the definitions included in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and their impact on universal service.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 included findings and definitions
that should guide the Commission in this area. Internet services are
"information services" and should not be burdened by regulations
designed for other services. Attempts to parcel out specific pieces of
Internet services, such as handset to handset Internet telephony or
backbone provision, for disparate regulatory treatment will impede the
development of the Internet. Simply put, the Internet's square peg
should not be forced into the round hole of existing
telecommunications regulations.
The Telecommunications Act provides clear instruction to the
Commission as it responds to the questions posed by Congress. Section
230(b)(2), language I supported and defended in the conference
committee on the Telecommunications Act, states that it is the policy
of the United States, "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free
market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation." This
language clearly shows that Congress did not believe regulation of the
Internet is necessary or desirable.
The separate and distinct definitions of "telecommunications,"
"telecommunications services" and "information services" in the
Telecommunications Act are not a new and unique framework of
classifications for telecommunications related offerings. They are
based on definitions that have been used and developed over a long
period of time. The information services definition is derived from
the Modified Final Judgement in the AT&T divestiture case and closely
tracks the "enhanced services" definition used by the Commission in
its Computer II inquiry.
INTERNET TELEPHONY IS NOT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
Under the definitions in the Act, Internet telephony is an information
service rather than a telecommunications service. Because Internet
telephony is not a telecommunications service, it should not be
regulated like one.
The definition of telecommunications, "the transmission, between or
among points specified by the user, information of a user's choosing,
without changing the form or content of the information as sent and
received," does not simply state that the information appears the same
to the user, but that the information has undergone no change in form
or content. For regulatory purposes, the critical distinction in the
Act is not whether offerings appear to be "like" services to the end
user, but whether they have undergone a change in form or content
which may or may not be visible to the user. Internet services in
general, by virtue of the use of the Internet Protocol, undergo a
change in form or content.
Because Internet Protocol (IP) telephony from one handset to another
has been cited as the leading example of a "like" service, I will take
a moment to explain the change in form and content resulting from such
technology. When a user places an IP call, the message is altered and
information is added during the transmission process. The information
is compressed, converted to IP code, and sent in packets across the
worldwide network of networks. For applications such as email, the
packets of information are stored on a destination server until a
sufficient number of the packets arrive. If too many packets are lost,
the message will be resent. However, in IP telephony the message can
not be delayed, so intelligent guesses are made about the tones that
should be included, and voice packets are synthesized to complete the
message.
Internet telephony involves not only changes in form (breaking
transmissions into packets and converting them), but changes in
content as well (adding new estimated data to replace any that is lost
in transmission). This is clearly not typical voice service, but a
separate and distinct information service.
REGULATING INTERNET TELEPHONY WILL STIFLE INNOVATION AND UNDERMINE THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
IP telephony creates the potential for multiple new uses in the
future. I do not contemplate simple phone calls moving over the
Internet, but phone calls with audio attachments and perhaps video or
graphical enclosures for those who have electronic devices capable of
opening them. The opportunity is enormous.
However, we can still squander that opportunity if we look for ways to
regulate parts of these innovative services with old models that block
the development of new services. This would be a phenomenal mistake,
halting the third largest driver of our economy and limiting the
options available for consumers. This is exactly the opposite of the
stated intention of the Telecommunications Act.
It is counterintuitive that Congress, in a sweepingly deregulatory
Act, would seek to smother a competitive industry under layers of new
obligations such as Section 214, tariff, or resale requirements or
interstate access charges. Congress did not intend to place these
obligations on a competitive, and previously unregulated, industry.
"SELF-PROVISIONING" INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS SHOULD NOT PAY INTO THE
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND
To exploit the opportunities available from new technology, some
Internet service providers may opt to develop their own infrastructure
rather than purchase capacity from existing telecommunications service
providers. An Internet service provider that wishes to provide
services over its own network or backbone is still providing
information services. Attempts to parcel out portions of the service
under different regulatory regimes - including requiring payments to
the Universal Service Fund for a portion the service - will stifle the
benefits of innovation.
Further, such a scheme would be unworkable administratively. It would
require the apportionment of "information service" revenues and
"telecommunications service" revenues to assess universal service
payments. This could, again, open the door to additional regulation
(including under Title II), going well beyond the objective of
universal service payments.
Finally, such an approach would discourage building the communications
networks of the future. Internet service providers will hesitate to
expanding bandwidth capability on their own if it means subjecting
their businesses to excessive regulation. This could slow the
provision of new technologies to consumers.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET
As you may know, I have introduced legislation to take the concept of
a deregulated Internet envisioned in the Telecommunications Act one
step further. My bill, H.R. 2372, the Internet Protection Act, creates
a new regulatory model that is more appropriate for the competitive
communications culture of the future. The bill blocks regulation of
the Internet unless Congress finds it is needed, instead of making a
regulatory framework designed to solve old problems fit this new
medium. The bill also uses new competitive industries to expand
competition in regulated fields, so that we unleash innovation instead
of strangling it. While this is not the matter at hand, it is the
harbinger of the future. I am interested to know your views on the
bill.
As the Commission implements and enforces the Telecommunications Act,
it should pay close attention to the plain language of the Act, as
instructed by Congress when it commissioned the current study. The
Commission has been charged with helping develop a deregulated,
competitive communications system. It should be very careful not to
impose a regulatory framework that is the legacy of a century-old
telephone system on new, value added services that will drive
tomorrow's economy.
Sincerely,
Rick White
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:23 EST