====================================================
################ #############
################ ## #
## #############
## ### # ### ### # # # ## # ### ###
## # # # # # # # # ## # # # #
## ## # ## # # # ## ## ## # # ### #
## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # #
## ### ### ### ### # # # ## # ### #
====================================================
Free Speech Media, LLC
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
December 22, 1995
Number 20
====================================================
Compiled, written, and edited by Coralee Whitcomb
Please direct comments and inquiries to cwhitcom@bentley.edu.
====================================================
For more information on Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, please write CPSR@CPSR.ORG or call
415-322-3778.
====================================================
The Telecom Post is posted to several distribution lists and is also available
from the CPSR listserv. To subscribe, send to LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG with the
message SUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST YOUR NAME. Unsubscribtion requests should
be sent to the list from which you receive the Telecom Post unless you
purposely subscribed to it through CPSR in which case you would write to
LISTSERV@CPSR.ORG with the message UNSUBSCRIBE TELECOM-POST.
=====================================================
The Telecom Post is posted moore or less weekly. My apologies
for cross-posts.
======================================================
TOPICS
1. STATE OF THE TELECOM BILL
2. MEDIA CONCENTRATION
3. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
4. BELL ENTRY INTO LONG DISTANCE
STATE OF THE BILL
One has to wonder how it is that telecommunications legislation
always ends up on the tail end of the waning days of a
Congressional session. As of January 20, the conferees appeared
to have reached closure on all the sticky issues needing
resolution between the House and Senate bills. The White House
exuded enthusiasm about how its pressure had resulted in a great
piece of legislation and even my hero, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA),
offered his support. There was every reason to believe, as of
the first day of winter, that the design of our information
future was a done deal. This morning's Boston Globe reports,
however, that many of the Republicans are unhappy with the state
of the bill and unwilling to support it. Their beef? Too
regulatory.
While those eager to continue the fight might take this as great
news, this year's budget battle tightens the screws of the
timeline. On any other year Congress would be headed home till
late January. This year, however, it looks like they'll be back
at work during the holidays. A reminder - the staffs of the
conference committee worked through Thanksgiving too. I'd guess
the moods aren't exactly festive right now.
It would be comforting to think that the conference committee,
given the importance of this legislation, had come to their
compromises through serious committee negotiations. Not so.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) complains that though there may
have been small meetings of conferees, she has not been made
aware of many she would have wanted to attend. Rep. Pat
Schroeder (D-CO) reports that "many people on our side [of the
aisle] have had trouble trying to find out where and when the
[staff] meetings are held." Both report receiving actual
language on the same day they are to vote The bill is 175
pages long. If you'll recall, the infamous Manager's Amendment,
which completely changed the game in the HR1555, was slipped
into the bill just prior to the House vote. Is this happening
often enough to describe it as the Republican style?
Thought the official bill language has not been released, some
details have made it into the media. An overview of what we've
got is this:
MEDIA CONCENTRATION
This issue was the final sticking point. Senator Ernest
Hollings (D-SC) and the White House were the main opponents of
the language in HR1555 and S652, claiming it would do more to
develop unregulated monopolies than unleashing "wild"
competition as intended. I saw a prediction somewhere that we
are likely to see our current field of 15 major carriers reduced
to a somewhere between 2-4 once the dust clears from the merger
frenzy. It is this set of compromises that has the GOP up in
arms right now. It is also the basis on which the White House
has lifted its threat of veto.
The following list contains the compromises reached. The worst
case category refers to language that exists in the House and/or
the Senate bills. Until this legislation is law, the worst
case language is still in contention for inclusion in the final
bill. You be the judge.
Radio station ownership:
Worst case - no limits on the number of radio stations owned by
a single entity within a single market.
Compromise - no more that 8 radio stations owned by a single
entity within a single market
Current law - no more than 2 AM and 2 FM stations owned by a
single entity within a single market
TV Broadcast:
Worst case - A single network can own stations reaching 35% of
the nation's households. The FCC can waive that limit. A
single network can own 2 stations in a single market.
Compromise - A single network can own stations reaching 35% of
the nation's households. The FCC cannot waive that limit. A
single network cannot own 2 stations in a single market but the
FCC can waive that limit.
Current law - A single network can own stations reaching 25% of
the nation's households. A single network cannot own 2 stations
in the same market.
TV/Newspaper Ownership
Worst case - no limits on owning both in a single market.
Compromise - A TV station is not allowed to own a newspaper in
the same market.
Current - A TV station is not allowed to own a newspaper in the
same market.
Telco/Cable
Worst case - Telephone companies can merge with cable companies
in markets of 50,000 or less.
Compromise - Telephone companies can merge with cable companies
in markets of 50,000 or less but only in rural, not urban, areas.
Current - Telephone companies cannot merge with cable companies.
Rubert Murdoch lost one. Currently he owns minority stakes in
TV stations that reach 38% of national households. The FCC is
able to restrict that reach. A provision in the original
language would have prevented the FCC from imposing that
restriction but it was rejected meaning that Fox may have to
give up some of its stations.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET
Censorship took center stage last week when the worst of our
fears were realized. Who would have thought Senator Exon's (D-)
amendment (the Communications Decency Act, CDA) would make it
into law? Early on Newt Gingrich claimed that it was
unconstitutional and appeared to stand as the great defender of
the First Amendment. Then came the big "cyberporn" scare and a
big push from the Christian Right on "family values". Now there
is very little contention in Congress over this provision. Newt
has become silent. It is most likely a done deal. (I'd love
to see a recent GOPAC contribution list.)
Any questions on the constitutionality of the CDA will now have
to take place in the courtroom. The _American Reporter_, an
online magazine, has suggested that it will pursue that course
by publishing an intentionally "indecent" article written by a
judge and then pursue the litigation process to the highest
level.
The state of the language is the following:
A. Criminal penalties of 2 years imprisonment and $100,000 in
fines can be levied upon the knowing transmission of offensive
material to minors. The week of December 4 brought this issue
to the conferee table. Rep. Rick White (R-WA) proposed language
that closely resembled the original Exon amendment but replaced
the standard of "indecency" with the standard of "harmful to
minors". This would have narrowed the test dramatically.
However, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) proposed a modification that
returned the wording to "indecent" and it passed 17-16.
- A quick look at standards:
Indecency - used for broadcast media
This standard includes less-than-obscene material including the
"seven dirty words", _Catcher in the Rye_, Ulysses, sex and AIDs
educational literature, photographic, sculpted, and painted
images of nudes, rap lyrics. . .
1. taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in
nudity, sex, or excretion
2. depicts, represents or describes in patently offensive ways,
ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated
sadomasochistic acts or abuse; or lewd exhibition of the
genitals, public area, buttocks, or post-pubertal female breasts
Obscenity
1. taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in nudity,
sex, or excretion
2. depicts, represents or describes in patently offensive ways,
ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated
sadomasochistic acts or abuse; or lewd exhibition of the
genitals, public area, buttocks, or post-pubertal female breasts
3. taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value
Harmful to minors
1. taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to the
prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion
2. depicts, represents or describes in a patently offensive way
with respect to what is suitable for minors, ultimate sexual
acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated sadomasochistic
acts or abuse; or lewd exhibition of the genitals, public area,
buttocks, or post-pubertal female breasts
3. taken as a whole and with respect to minors, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
Those who would be held liable are anyone who
1. "makes, creates, or solicits and initiates the transmission
of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communications which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or
indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass
another person. Or
2. who "uses an interactive computer service to send directly to
any person under 18 years of age, or to send to any interactive
computer service for display in a manner available to a person
under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion,
proposal, image, or other communication that is harmful to
minors, regardless of whether the maker of such communication
placed the call or initiated the communication".
B. Access providers and employers are given protections from
liability for the transmission of offensive material.
C. The FCC is prohibited from regulating content on the
Internet. (This is taken from the Cox/Wyden amendment in HR1555).
D. Industry is encouraged (ala Cox/Wyden) to develop
technologies that will block or screen for offensive material.
The "V-chip" language is included calling on industry to
voluntarily develop a coding system that can be used to develop
filters from the home. Discussions are beginning to develop
over the usefulness of developing an extensive coding system
that will serve as a general information management tool.
BABY BELL ENTRY INTO LONG DISTANCE
The checklist approach to determining that an adequate level of
competition exists before the Bells are freed from their
regulatory bindings has been left largely for industry special
interests to struggle with. Upon passage of HR1555, the long
distance industry became ardently opposed to the legislation
claiming that the Bells would be allowed to compete in the long
distance (or interLATA, IXC, etc.) market before adequate
competition existed locally. Again, specific language was at
issue. The result - the Baby Bells have walked away with the
whole show. Sen. Ernest Hollings played a key role in this
issue. Strong pressure came from Gingrich and Dole to remove
regulations at the earliest possible opportunity Hollings had
the clout to effectively stand in the way of that pressure. He
chose not to.
There were two major sticking points with regard to releasing
the Bells from regulatory constraints. The first was the test
for the existence of adequate competition in the local market.
Strict tests requiring "actual and demonstrable"
"facilities-based competition" exist in the local market were
supported by Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA). The competitor had to
offer services "equal in price, features and scope" to the local
Bell's. The Bell's protested that this would delay their entry
into long distance for years. HR1555 started out with this test
but the Manager's Amendment, inserted at the last minute,
revised the test to one requiring only the presence of a
non-facilities based reseller in the local market. The long
distance industry then began its campaign to defeat the bill.
Bliley made a heroic effort to return the bill to its original
language and might have been successful with help from Hollings,
but it was not to be. Now the Bells will be able to jump into
long distance almost immediately in some areas.
The second sticking point was on pricing. As monopolies, Baby
Bells are subject or Rate-of-Return (ROR) regulation on their
charges. ROR means that their profit margins are tied to their
costs and the amount is determined by state regulators.
Desperate for release from that yoke, the Bells argue for
"pricing flexibility". Pricing flexibility takes the form of
price caps in some instances. Consumer groups claim that by
lowering services standards and with the decreasing cost of
technology, price caps will give the Bells the ability to
overcharge the American consumer by as much as $14 billion a
year. Dole has applied much pressure on the committee to
dispense with the ROR regulation and it appears to have paid
off. One wonders what kind of pressure the Bells will be able
to afford once their profits are freed from regulatory
constraints.
WHAT TO DO
Because final language has not publicly appeared, this is far
from a complete list of issues involved in this hugely complex
bill. We may have only the week between Christmas and New Years
to continue applying pressure for either defeat or a better
bill. Once the bill comes out of conference it will pass back
through the House and Senate. Your representatives need to hear
your thoughts. It can still be prevented from reaching the
President's desk.
Happy Holidays everyone. It's been a great year for electronic
grassroots activism. Hopefully, these pioneering efforts will form
the seeds of a new form of citizenship in the years to come.