Subject: Re: APT
John Schwartz (schwartz@usa.net)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:48:11 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980910084811.008edeb0@postoffice.att.net> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:48:11 -0600 To: roundtable@cni.org From: John Schwartz <schwartz@usa.net> Subject: Re: APT In-Reply-To: <35F77E24.3A13@pacbell.net> References: <35F5D9E2.761A@apt.org>
On 9/9/98, Don Vial <dvial@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, Mr Johnson, we are still alive at APT. I chair
> the policy committee of APT and do much of the
> writing of our FCC filings with Henry Geller.
> We are both former regulators, and we do this pro
> bono because we believe in the policies being
> advanced by APT to achieve a transition to a
> competitive environment that does not dump the
> failures of the markeplace on marginalize
> communities.
>
> We may have some real diffenences with you and
> others in how we view the evolution of competition
> in the industry. For that reason, we do post our
> filings and policy viewpoints on our web page for
> everyone to see and read. Most recently we posted
> the remarks I made at a NARUC Telecommunication
> Committee meeting in Seattle as part of a policy
> panel on the implementation of Section 706. You
> might find them useful in gaining a better
> understanding of what drives me to give so much of
> my time to APT. Also,in the next few days, we will
> be posting an Action Alert which I have written in
> connection with the recent action of the FCC
> regarding its NPRM/OII on the implementation of
> Section 706--the nation's commitment to ubiquity in
> the deployment of advanced telecommunications
> capabilty. That alert attempts to relate what the
> FCC is proposing in the context of APT policies
> which we have been consistently advancing both
> before and since the passage of the 1996
> Telecommunications Act
>
> I wish I had the time to answer everyone's views
> about APT, but I am afraid that it is going to be
> necessary to refer people who have an interest in
> APT,whether positive or negative,to read what we are
> actually saying in our policy documents, rather than
> depending on others to interpret them.
>
> Like many struggling public interest groups, we wish
> we had a broader base of financial support for our
> activities. However, given our strong egalitarian
> policies, it is understandable that we are finding
> it difficult to obtain any support from companies in
> the convengent industry whose primary focus in
> breaking up monopolies is on capturing the
> high-margin, high-end of the market. We are, as our
> name implies an Alliance for "Public" Technology. To
> us, competition is a means to an end; not an end in
> itself. I must admit, that I do not say three "hail
> Milton Friedman's" every day. If we are going to
> depend on the marketplace of competition to build
> "public" infrastructure, then we had better start
> focusing on how the marketplace is going to work for
> communities that it marginalizes in the process or
> segmenting and stratifing markets for exploitation.
> We have advanced three specific, pro-active
> recommendations to overcome the implicit "electronic
> redlining" of the marketplace that is laying a new
> infrastructure foundation for another round of
> economic and social polarization of the society. I
> hope our critics take the time to read those
> recommendations and to advise us whether of not we
> are on the right track, or how we might more
> effectively pursue our universal service objectives
> in a market environment. We advanced the pro-active
> recommendation (see my Alert) as an integral part of
> our recommendations to remove disincentives to
> investments in high capacity bandwidth to reach all
> of society. These issues are highly germaine to the
> FCC's recent action. We do not want to see, in the
> name of a "level playing field" for competitors, the
> launching of another competitive race for the high
> end of the market. Read our Alert and you will find
> out why have taken that position. Then, if you want
> to snipe at us, that is your privelege. At least you
> will have a more informed base for doing so.
I too note that Don Vial took the time to write a fairly long posting
to this list but could not find time to answer basic questions about
seeming contradictions in APT's positions. If, as he seems to imply,
these questions are based a failure to comprehend the specifics of
APT's filings, let him respond specifically.
Although I think this is evident, I would like to stress that none of
this discussion concerns personalities. It concerns APT's practice of
promoting its positions on-line, but minimizing participation in
discussions about them.
Mr. Vial and colleagues: the opportunity is still here. If you'll agree
to answer the questions, I'll go through my ancient outbox files and do
my best repost them.
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 - 03:33:41 EST