informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/EFF/eff513.law
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

502 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

******************************************************************
////////////// ////////////// //////////////
/// /// ///
/////// /////// ///////
/// /// ///
////////////// /// ///
******************************************************************
EFFector Online Volume 5 No. 13 7/23/1993 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
In this issue:
Online Congressional Hearings Postponed
Summary of New Infrastructure Bill
EFF Joins Telecommunications Policy Roundtable
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
**************************************
Online Congressional Hearing Postponed
**************************************
In the last issue of EFFector Online (Volume 5, Number 12, July 7, 1993),
we announced an upcoming online Congressional hearing to be held over the
Internet on July 26 at 9:30AM EDT. Unfortunately, this event has been
postponed until October or November. The following note from Internet Town
Hall organizer Carl Malamud explains:
"I wanted to explain a bit more my understanding of why we
are delaying the congressional hearings. Please be very
clear that I do not represent the committee and that this
explanation is being sent in my capacity as the organizer
of the Internet Town Hall.
"The Internet Town Hall depends on voluntary donations from a
large number of parties. For this Internet Town Hall, we've
had a tremendous outpouring of support from groups such as
O'Reilly & Associates, Sun Microsystems, Cisco, ARPA, Empirical
Tools and Technologies, BBN, UUNET, Metropolitan Fiber Systems,
and many others.
"The purpose of this broad coalition is to demonstrate how the
Internet works and how the Internet can be made to work in the
congressional process. We wanted to make the point that there
exists a general-purpose infrastructure that allows everything
from email to IRC chat to WAIS databases to the World Wide Web
to be accessed.
"One of the key things we wanted to show the Congress was how
audio and video can work over a general purpose infrastructure
such as the Internet. Rather than transmit video over the key
transit networks, which tend to get overloaded during events
such as the Internet Town Hall, ARPA had agreed to furnish the
use of DARTNET, the experimental advanced research network they
operate.
"The underlying transmission facilities for DARTNET are operated
by Sprint. In order for the National Press Club, the headquarters
site for the hearing, to be part of DARTNET we required a T1
line from our facility to the Sprint point of presence a few
blocks away. We had requested Sprint to provide that T1 line
and become part of the Internet Town Hall.
"In the course of examining our request, Sprint postulated that
furnishing a T1 line for a congressional hearing might violate
congressional ethics laws. There are in fact laws on the books
that prohibit members of Congress or its committees from accepting
in-kind donations over a certain value under certain circumstances.
Sprint forwarded their concerns to the House Ethics Committee,
and then later informed the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and Finance and my organization of their actions.
"Needless to say, there are technical alternatives to the T1 line
that we asked Sprint to furnish. In fact, a single call to
Metropolitan Fiber Systems resulted in a 10 Mbps virtual Ethernet
using ATM between Washington, D.C. and Boston which is available
for the hearing when it does occur.
"Even though the technical issue is solved, there still remains
the ethics concern. We firmly believe that a broad industry/government
group volunteering time and money to show how the congressional
process can be changed to include more input from the general
public to be in the public interest. However, we are equally
adamant that *ANY* ethical concerns *MUST* be cleared before
we proceed with the hearings.
"The crux of the issue has to do with in-kind contributions. If
you are testifying before Congress, it is clearly allowed to bring
in computers. However, a donation to the underlying infrastructure
of the congressional committee might be construed as an expense
that must be reimbursed by the committee to the donor. The purpose
of such laws is to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that
the congressional process is clean and not subject to the undue
influence of a particular interest group.
"We will spend the next few months describing to congressional
officials exactly what we have in mind for the hearings. Since this
will be a historical occasion, there is no precedent for on-line
hearings. We want to make sure that everybody is very comfortable
with the issues and that officials believe that there is public
benefit in such a demonstration.
"I'd like to thank all the volunteers for their time and effort
to date. A tremendous amount of behind the scenes efforts has
already taken place and we're hoping to salvage some of that
effort so we don't have to start from scratch. I'd also like
to thank everybody on the network who sent in letters. The
Subcommittee and Congressman Markey were truly impressed at
the volume and the quality of the commentary from the public
through e-mail and are looking forward to a successful on-line
hearing later in the year.
"BTW, we're keeping congress@town.hall.org open ... no sense
in cutting off communication!
Carl Malamud
Internet Multicasting Service"
*******************************************************
Telecommunications Infrastructure Act of 1993 (S. 1086)
*******************************************************
Introduced by Senators Danforth and Inouye on June 9, 1993
First hearing scheduled: July 14, 9:30 AM
A Summary by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
The Senate Communications Subcommittee is now in the process of
considering legislation that would eliminate the legal monopoly that
local telephone companies have on local phone service, allow any
communications provider to offer local phone service, and allow local
telephone companies to compete fully in the cable television market.
The legislation's goal is to promote increased investment in the
nation's telecommunications infrastructure.
The bill proposes many significant policy changes, chief among
which is a very rapid move toward deregulating the local telephone
companies' monopoly on local telephone service. The policies proposed
are laid out in broad concepts, leaving the Federal Communications
Commission to wrestle with the actual implementation of the policies.
LOCAL EXCHANGE COMPETITION
One year after the bill is enacted, any company would be allowed
to offer local telephone service. Potential new entrants that would be
allowed in the local exchange market under this bill include cable
television companies, wireless service providers, and even Bell
companies outside their current local exchange monopoly areas. Any
State laws that would preserve the current telephone company monopoly
or limit the entry of competitors are pre-empted by the bill.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER OBLIGATIONS
Any company that offers telecommunications service or is
interconnected with the local exchange carrier's network has several
obligations under this bill. The definition of telecommunications
service is somewhat vague, but it certainly includes voice telephone
service, interactive data services used to carry information services,
and possibly one-way video services such as those currently provided by
cable television companies. Carriers' obligations include:
1. Interconnection
All carriers that either provide telecommunications service or are
interconnected with a carrier that provides telecommunications
service must allow other carriers to interconnect with their network
for the purpose of providing telecommunications or information services
to users of either network. Network operators must provide
interconnection under nondiscriminatory terms, on an unbundled basis.
Operators must also supply all necessary technical information to enable
others to interconnect and interoperate from one network to another.
2. Universal Service
All providers of telecommunications service must contribute to the
"preservation and advancement of universal service." States, in
cooperation with the FCC, are responsible to make regulations that
establish the mechanism for supporting universal service in the newly
competitive telephone market. The bill does provide, however, that any
universal service support should be given directly to "individuals and
entities that cannot afford the cost" of telecommunications service.
Subsidy for users' communications equipment is also allowed.
3. Number Portability
The FCC will establish regulations the provide for "portable"
numbers from all carriers as soon as possible. Thus, a customer could
switch telecommunications providers without having to change telephone
numbers. The administration of the numbering system would be removed
from Bellcore and placed with an "impartial entity."
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RURAL AREAS AND NONCOMPETITIVE MARKETS
The bill recognizes that in a competitive market environment,
rural and "noncompetitive markets" may not enjoy the level of investment
necessary for providing advanced telecommunications services. The
minimum level of service desired in the bill is that which would
"provide subscribers with sufficient network capacity to access to
information services that provide a combination of voice, data, image,
and video; and are available at nondiscriminatory rates that are based
on the reasonably identifiable costs of providing such services." It is
not clear that such services would be interactive. State regulators would
be given the primary responsibility to ensure that carriers have an
incentive to provide high-quality services to all areas. If this
approach fails, the FCC is empowered to take action to have necessary
service delivered to these areas.
NETWORK STANDARDS AND PLANNING
All segments of the communications industry are encouraged to work
together to set voluntary standards for interconnection and
interoperability. If the FCC determines that standards development is
not succeeding or is proceeding too slowly, it may set incentives or
deadlines for work to be completed. The FCC may also impose mandatory
standards if the voluntary process fails.
The FCC and the States are required to ensure that advanced
telecommunications services are designed to be accessible to people with
disabilities.
TELEPHONE COMPANY ENTRY INTO CABLE TELEVISION MARKET
The current ban preventing local telephone companies from entering
the cable television market is lifted, in part. Local phone companies
will be allowed, under the bill, to provide cable television service
within their serving area, if the service is provided by a
separate subsidiary and the phone company does not break any laws
regarding improper cross-subsidization between phone service and cable
services. By the same token, cable companies that provide
telecommunications service must do so through separate subsidiaries and
obey laws regarding cross-subsidization. Phone companies are still not
allowed to purchase more than 5 percent interest in any cable system
that provides services within the phone companies' service regions.
CHANGES IN LONG DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS
The restrictions on local phone companies against providing long
distance (InterLATA) telecommunications service are lifted, in part, by
the bill, to enable local phone companies to function more easily in the
cable television and cellular phone markets. Bell companies would be
allowed to operate wireline and satellite links for the purposes of
distributing cable television signals over long distances. Some
relaxation of the InterLATA restriction is also allowed to enable Bell
companies to carry cellular phone calls from one region to another, and
to hand off calls from one cellular system to another.
INFORMATION SERVICES SAFEGUARDS
Computers, Freedom and Privacy '94 Announcement
The fourth annual conference, "Computers, Freedom, and Privacy,"
will be held in Chicago, Il., March 23-26, 1994. This conference will
be jointly sponsored by the Association for Computing Machinery
(ACM) and The John Marshall Law School. George B. Trubow,
professor of law and director of the Center for Informatics Law at
John Marshall, is general chairman of the conference. The series
began in 1991 with a conference in Los Angeles, and subsequent
meetings took place in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, in
successive years. Each conference has addressed a broad range of
issues confronting the "information society" in this era of the
computer revolution.
The advance of computer and communications technologies holds
great promise for individuals and society. From conveniences for
consumers and efficiencies in commerce to improved public health
and safety and increased knowledge of and participation in
government and community, these technologies are fundamentally
transforming our environment and our lives.
At the same time, these technologies present challenges to the idea
of a free and open society. Personal privacy is increasingly at risk
from invasions by high-tech surveillance and monitoring; a myriad of
personal information data bases expose private life to constant
scrutiny; new forms of illegal activity may threaten the traditional
barriers between citizen and state and present new tests of
Constitutional protection; geographic boundaries of state and nation
may be recast by information exchange that knows no boundaries as
governments and economies are caught up in global data networks.
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy '94 will present an assemblage of
experts, advocates and interested parties from diverse perspectives
and disciplines to consider the effects on freedom and privacy
resulting from the rapid technological advances in computer and
telecommunication science. Participants come from fields of
computer science, communications, law, business and commerce,
research, government, education, the media, health, public advocacy
and consumer affairs, and a variety of other backgrounds. A series of
pre-conference tutorials will be offered on March 23, 1994, with the
conference program beginning on Thursday, March 24, and running
through Saturday, March 26, 1994.
The emphasis in '94 will be on examining the many potential uses of
new technology and considering recommendations for dealing with
them. "We will be looking for specific suggestions to harness the new
technologies so society can enjoy the benefits while avoiding
negative implications," said Trubow. "We must manage the
technology, or it will manage us," he added.
Trubow is putting out a call for papers or program suggestions.
"Anyone who is doing a paper relevant to our subject matter, or who
has an idea for a program presentation that will demonstrate new
computer or communications technology and suggest what can be
done with it, is invited to let us know about it." Any proposal must
state the title of the paper or program, describe the theme and
content in a short paragraph, and set out the credentials and
experience of the author or suggested speakers. Conference
communications should be sent to:
CFP'94
John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct.
Chicago, IL 60604
(Voice: 312-987-1419; Fax: 312-427-8307; E-mail: CFP94@jmls.edu)
Trubow anticipates that announcement of a student writing
competition for CFP'94 will be made soon, together with information
regarding the availability of a limited number of student
scholarships for the conference. Trubow said, "I expect the
organizational structure for CFP'94, including the designation of
program committees, to be completed by about the first of August, to
allow plenty of time for the development of a stimulating and
informative conference."
The venerable Palmer House, a Hilton hotel located at the corner of
State Street and Washington Ave. in Chicago's "loop," and only about
a block from the John Marshall Law School buildings, will be the
conference headquarters. Room reservations should be made directly
with the hotel, mentioning John Marshall Law School or "CFP'94" to
get the special conference rate of $99.00, plus tax.
The Palmer House Hilton
17 E. Monroe., Chicago, Il., 60603
Tel: 312-726-7500; 1-800-HILTONS; Fax 312-263-2556
-==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
Preliminary Report -- Rural Datafication Conference
Chicago, May 13 & 14, 1993
Over 200 hundred people from all over the United States and Canada
gathered in Chicago last week to participate in _Rural Datafication:
achieving the goal of ubiquitous access to the Internet_. The
conference was sponsored by CICNet and nine cooperating state
communications networks or organizations: NetILLINOIS, INDNet,
IREN, MichNet, MRNet, NYSERNet, PREPnet, WiscNet, and WVNET. Two
of the represented states (Minnesota and Indiana) took the
opportunity to caucus among themselves to further define their own
activities.
The program began Thursday afternoon with hosted discussion
groups intended to discover where we could make improvements in
networked information services. Then a panel described current
successful projects in British Columbia (Roger Hart), North Dakota
(Dan Pullen), Montana (Frank Odasz), Washington, Alaska, and Oregon
(Sherrilynne Fuller), Pennsylvania (Art Hussey), and Massachusetts
(Miles Fidelman). Questions from the panel and the audience would
have kept the room filled far into the night had the moderator not
sent everyone out to dinner.
The next morning's sessions featured knowledgeable speakers open
to interaction with the other conference attendees. Mike Staman set
the stage. He was followed by Ross Stapleton who spoke about
recognizing that our government is also not well-networked; by
Simona Nass who spoke about some of the legal and policy issues of
networked communities; by Anthony Riddle who spoke about how
the networked information community could build from the
experiences of the community access television people; and by
George Baldwin who spoke about using networked information to
preserve Native American cultures. Rick Gates finished up the
morning with a presentation that described his efforts to teach
information discovery on the nets using play.
The afternoon session featured reports from the hosted discussion
groups on agriculture, on health care and health education, on
libraries, on post-secondary education, on community and
government information, and on K-12 education. Joel Hartman of
Bradley University and netILLINOIS moderated.
The interaction among the attendees and between and with the
speakers and panelists brought the most benefit, according to some
attendees. The attendees recognized that we haven't quite figured
out how to solve the extensive problems that bar network access to
all but they are excited about continuing to identify and work on
removing the barriers. A number suggested that the meeting should
actually be the first Rural Datafication Conference and offered to host
and/or organize the anticipated follow-on meeting next year. Many
offered format and speaker suggestions for that meeting and look
forward to the anticipated proceedings from the conference which
CICNet expects to publish.
CICNet is working on a summary of the meeting and working to build
a gopher/ftp-archive and printed version of the meeting. We'll
announce the availability of those versions as soon as we can. Thanks
to all the participants for a successful meeting and to all of you who
have expressed interest but couldn't come.
____________________________
Glee Harrah Cady, Manager, Information Services, CICNet 2901
Hubbard, Ann Arbor, MI 48105 +1.313.998.6419
glee@cic.net
=============================================================
EFFector Online is published by
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003 USA
Phone: +1 202 544 9237 FAX: +1 202 547 5481
Internet Address: eff@eff.org
Coordination, production and shipping by Cliff Figallo, EFF
Online Communications Coordinator (fig@eff.org)
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged.
Signed articles do not necessarily represent the view of the EFF.
To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors
for their express permission.
*This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons*
=============================================================
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
In order to continue the work already begun and to expand our
efforts and activities into other realms of the electronic frontier, we
need the financial support of individuals and organizations.
If you support our goals and our work, you can show that support by
becoming a member now. Members receive our bi-weekly electronic
newsletter, EFFector Online (if you have an electronic address that
can be reached through the Net), and special releases and other
notices on our activities. But because we believe that support should
be freely given, you can receive these things even if you do not elect
to become a member.
Your membership/donation is fully tax deductible.
Our memberships are $20.00 per year for students and $40.00 per
year for regular members. You may, of course, donate more if you
wish.
Our privacy policy: The Electronic Frontier Foundation will never,
under any circumstances, sell any part of its membership list. We
will, from time to time, share this list with other non-profit
organizations whose work we determine to be in line with our goals.
But with us, member privacy is the default. This means that you
must actively grant us permission to share your name with other
groups. If you do not grant explicit permission, we assume that you
do not wish your membership disclosed to any group for any reason.
=============================================================
Mail to:
Membership Coordinator
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
666 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 303
Washington, DC 20003 USA
I wish to become a member of the EFF. I enclose: $_______
I wish to renew my membership in the EFF. I enclose: $_______
$20.00 (student or low income membership)
$40.00 (regular membership)
[ ] I enclose an additional donation of $_______
Name:
Organization:
Address:
City or Town:
State: Zip: Phone: ( ) (optional)
FAX: ( ) (optional)
Email address:
I enclose a check [ ].
Please charge my membership in the amount of $
to my Mastercard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ]
Number:
Expiration date:
Signature: ________________________________________________
Date:
I hereby grant permission to the EFF to share my name with
other non-profit groups from time to time as it deems
appropriate [ ].
Initials:___________________________
--
<EFBFBD> Christopher Davis <20> <ckd@kei.com> <20> <ckd@eff.org> <20> [CKD1] <20> MIME <20> RIPEM <20>
^ if these characters appear as the number 7 then you don't have ISO-8859-1 ^
^ or something between me and you stripped the high bit on this message. ^
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink