Will bureaucrats turn the Net into TV? Note from FCC

A note from an acquaintance formerly at the FCC. --Declan


---------- Forwarded message ----------

Having spedt my years at the FCC doing pre-repeal Fairness Doctrine and
Sec. 315 equal time matters, I think [deleted-dm]'s concerns, tho'
justified politically [because most adminsitrations will leave no good
technology unhobbled] are without substantial legal basis.

The hook for the Fairness Doctrine obligation imposed on broadcasters as a
corollary to their statutory 'public interest' obligations was as a
licensee of scarce broadcast spectrum--a discrete frequency awarded on a
putatively compettive basis. 

Those key elements[scarcity/license/obligation] are--for now--lacking in
the on-line environment.  And while no doubt this or another
Administration, or wiley Congressional staffer could gin up a plausable
nexus between the web and interstate commerce, sufficiient to sustain a
new public interest obligation, I think we're two or three generations of
bandwith scarcity away from that becoming a compelling element of a
cyber-resource allocation scheme. 

Without that overarching allocation-based [license] compulsion (to force
even facial compliance with an obligation, so that enforcement would
become essential to compliance, thus creating a need for thousands of Web
police to review commercial licensees sites and traffic--[what a
nightmare] -) -the liklihood of developing a meaningful scheme of public
interest obligation would be a an overdebated and overhyped PC exercise,
quickly becoming comic--and then dangerous.

does anyone else smell a bureacrat writing that article?

>Without that overarching allocation-based [license] compulsion (to force
>even facial compliance with an obligation, so that enforcement would
>become essential to compliance, thus creating a need for thousands of Web
>police to review commercial licensees sites and traffic--[what a
>nightmare] -) -the liklihood of developing a meaningful scheme of public
>interest obligation would be a an overdebated and overhyped PC exercise,
>quickly becoming comic--and then dangerous. 

whoa, someone claiming that the government won't do something because
it would lead to a horrible increase in the number of bureacrats or
federal police?

hmmmmmmmm, somehow I don't feel so reassured.

here is another reason the net won't be regulated: because it
is like society's nervous system, and freedom of expression and
speech has finally found a tangible outlet and form after
centuries of attempts. "freedom of press"
only applies to those who have a press, yet freedom of web sites
belongs to anyone who can scrounge up $5/mo. (I promise you I am
now paying that amount for a site).

moreover, the net has become a powerful economic force. there are
tens of thousands of people now making their living directly or
indirectly off the net. any attempt to change its chemistry will
involve a backlash from some of the most intelligent and motivated
people on the planet.

people don't care too much about american politics, but any attempt
to mess with the internet will be slapped hard by the population, 
which is finally getting a clue about what the words
"participatory democracy" mean. it would be political suicide. this
is not to say that some idiot politicians will continue to experiment.
<g>

At 4:02 PM -0800 1/21/98, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>A note from an acquaintance formerly at the FCC. --Declan
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>Having spedt my years at the FCC doing pre-repeal Fairness Doctrine and
>Sec. 315 equal time matters, I think [deleted-dm]'s concerns, tho'
>justified politically [because most adminsitrations will leave no good
>technology unhobbled] are without substantial legal basis.
>
>The hook for the Fairness Doctrine obligation imposed on broadcasters as a
>corollary to their statutory 'public interest' obligations was as a
>licensee of scarce broadcast spectrum--a discrete frequency awarded on a
>putatively compettive basis.

Hey, this is what _I_ said.

>Those key elements[scarcity/license/obligation] are--for now--lacking in
>the on-line environment.  And while no doubt this or another

Yep, this was what I was saying.

>Administration, or wiley Congressional staffer could gin up a plausable
>nexus between the web and interstate commerce, sufficiient to sustain a
>new public interest obligation, I think we're two or three generations of
>bandwith scarcity away from that becoming a compelling element of a
>cyber-resource allocation scheme.

"Regulation of commerce" (which was, let us not forget, *interstate*
commerce, despite the recent extension into defining cloning as commerce,
growing peanuts as commerce, and painting pictures as commerce, etc.) is a
fundamentally different issue than allocation of scarce bandwidth.

Though Declan's source may be right that the burrowcrats will try to find a
reason to stick their fingers into the Net to regulate it (meaning,
rent-seeking), it won't be via the FCC. That will not fly.

I doubt that even President Gore will have the time this coming summer to
push for such foolish legislation.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."