Universal Service for the Net: Why it's a bad idea

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 07:53:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Universal Service for the Net: Why it's a bad idea

Yesterday I spent one of the most interminably boring afternoons of my
life in a cramped and sweaty eighth-floor conference room at the FCC.
The occasion? A special panel was announcing its recommendations to
the FCC on a new universal service plan, as required by the 1996
Telecommunications Act.

The problem was that the Federal-State Joint Board hadn't reached a
decision by the time the hearing was due to begin at 1 pm. Nor had
they at 2 pm. Or an hour later. In a conference room down the hall,
the eight-person board were sweating even more than we were. They
wanted consensus. Eventually the meeting began, closer to 4 pm.

The board's unanimous recommendation: The creation of a $2.25 billion
universal service fund to subsidize schools' Net-connections. The subsidy
will range from 20 percent to 90 percent and will be tied to how many kids
get tax-subsidized school lunches at each school. The cost will be paid
for by "telecommunications carriers," meaning higher phone bills for
consumers. (Of course, the FCC's Reed Hundt tried to duck this question,
but other panel mambers clarified.) The FCC will vote on this proposal
early next year -- and since Chairman Hundt was on the panel, approval
seems almost certain.

I happen to think this is a bad idea, but saying so publicly almost
inevitably results in charges of elitism, "information have-nots," or
being indifferent to the needs of our children. Opposing the CDA also
left one open to similar charges: soft on porn, high on anarchy, or
indifferent to the needs of our children. (I'm starting to believe
that more evil can be done in the name of "protecting our children"
than with any other excuse.)

But just as there are real arguments against the CDA that don't rely
on overheated "protecting children" rhetoric, so there are real
arguments against this universal service scheme:

* With more government intervention almost inevitably comes more
  control. I can hear it now from family values activists: "My tax
  dollars are going to pay for porn on the Net!"

* Why should a Beverly Hills high school get a discount of 20 percent?
  Can't they afford to pay for ISDN?

* Ironically, the same White House that is pushing this plan to wire
  schools to the Net is also pushing Bruce Lehman's "NII copyright bill"
  that will shut the door on schools' ability to _use_ information on
  the Net. Schizophrenic kowtowing to too many special interests? You
  decide.

* The American Library Association has fought the good fight on free
  expression issues (as in the second CDA suit, ALA v. DoJ) and on the
  copyright bill. Yet in this matter, they're the ones pushing for this
  universal service scheme. Clearly, alliances shift.

* With increased taxation of telecom industries -- taxes that could
  increase constantly at the whim of the FCC -- investors will be wary
  and money will shift elsewhere. If this happens, it will damage the
  ability of firms to improve our nation's telecom infrastructure.

* Does every student have a _right_ to be online -- that should be
  paid for by tax dollars -- or is it a _privilege_ that should be paid
  for by other means?

* This implementation of universal service is based on a knee-jerk
  fear of Internet "haves and have-nots." That's unrealistic. New
  technologies takes time to filter through a society. The joint board's
  position ignores history; flush toilets and cars took decades to spread.

* Why should universal service be a priority, before books and roofs
  for our schools? Dozens of schools in the nation's capital were
  blocked from opening because of, I recall, fire code violations and
  even non-working bathrooms. If the Clinton administration _truly and
  honestly_ wants to help children, the president has to look no
  further than the District's own school system. 

Don't get me wrong. I agree with the end goal, which is to get kids
online. But I can't stomach the Clinton administration's means to
that end.

-Declan