Subject: Re: Action Alert for Comments in FCC Advanced Services Inquiry
John Schwartz (schwartz@usa.net)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:44:51 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980903094451.008d6680@postoffice.att.net> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 09:44:51 -0600 To: roundtable@cni.org From: John Schwartz <schwartz@usa.net> Subject: Re: Action Alert for Comments in FCC Advanced Services Inquiry In-Reply-To: <35EDB643.6F903925@well.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19980902150938.006cf184@pop.mindspring.com>
On Wed, 02 Sep 1998, Daniel del Solar <dsolar@well.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we might stage a "mock-trial" and answer the questions in
> the ways we think they ought to be answered, and then reply with
> that in mind. To fail to reply, or submit positions, means only
> that alternative agendas will be frozen out of FCC deliberations.
>
> What do you think, John S.?
I share your concern that FCC policy debates tend to be dominated by
industry interests.
However, my knowledge of Section 706 is pretty shallow, and before I
could take part in anything like a mock trial I would have to know the
law, legislative history, and administrative record backwards and
forwards.
My recent postings have to do with process. It seems to me that if
one is to use a mailing list to promote one's policy position, one
then has to be ready for robust give-and-take. APT has responded only
sporadically and incompletely to questions about its stand on Section
706 -- let alone questions about its failure to respond. I think
that's unacceptable.
J.
_____________________________________________________________________________
John B. Schwartz
P.O. Box 6060 Telephone 303-442-2707
Boulder, CO 80306 FAX 303-442-6472
schwartz@usa.net
_____________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:40 EST