Message-Id: <55206A473154D011924D0020AFF7ACB527C8AD@mail1.oulan.ou.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:28:25 -0500
From: Bob Swisher <bswisher@ou.edu>
To: "'it-fyi@ou.edu'" <it-fyi@ou.edu>
Subject: FARNET's Washington Update 9/17/97
> FARNET'S WASHINGTON UPDATE --- SEPTEMBER 17, 1997
>
> IN THIS ISSUE:
>
> HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE OFFERS SUPPORT TO NGI, BUT IS IT TOO LATE TO
> SAVE FUNDING?
>
> CATO INSTITUTE HOLDS FORUM ON THE FUTURE OF TELECOM DEREGULATION
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
>
> HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE OFFERS SUPPORT TO NGI, BUT IS IT TOO LATE TO
> SAVE FUNDING?
>
> September 10 - The House Science Committee heard testimony on why the
> federal government should support the Next Generation Internet(NGI), a
> project designed to build a faster Internet system with fewer delays.
> The Clinton Administration has requested that $100 million per year
> for the next three years be allocated to this task, to be shared by
> five federal agencies - National Science Foundation, NASA, Commerce's
> National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department
> of Defense, and Department of Energy. Unfortunately, the
> Administration's initial plan presented to Congress failed to answer
> many concerns, in particular how the agencies receiving the funds
> would coordinate their efforts, and whether rural areas would benefit
> from the project. Sadly, appropriations granted so far do not come
> close to meeting the funds needed to meet the project's goals. The
> House has appropriated only $78 million, while the Senate has
> demonstrated its' concerns by only appropriating $35 million.
> Currently, a
> compromise figure is being worked out as the respective agency
> allocations are worked out in conference.
>
> Despite the recent restructuring of the NGI goals, - (placing research
> and development above infrastructure) - the latest NGI plan submitted
> by the Administration this past July still does not satisfy some in
> Congress who want more details on how the project will be coordinated
> among the five agencies, and why the federal government should even be
> involved. A common misconception in Congress is that the private
> sector is taking the lead on this project, and that therefore a
> federal government role is unnecessary (from a funding standpoint).
> According to Dr. John Gibbens, Assistant to the President on Science
> and Technology, the private sector is not likely to coordinate their
> resources for the common good of the nation. He continued by stating
> that the federal government should not only play a
> coordinating/leadership role, it also has an obligation to ensure that
> America's universities and research centers have access to the best
> communication technologies available.
>
> Dr. Gibbens was fortunate he had to leave after his testimony. Dr.
> Henry Kelley, standing in for him during the question and answer
> period, received the brunt of Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.'s
> (R-WI) wrath. Sensenbrenner chastised the Administration for being
> slow to react to congressional concerns, thereby losing momentum
> during the appropriations process. Although pledging his committee's
> support for NGI, he doubted whether the damage to NGI funding could be
> restored this year and encouraged the Administration to provide a game
> plan "ASAP" in order to avoid losing funding for subsequent years.
> Listening to Dr. Kelley calmly
> answer reporters' questions afterwards, it doesn't sound as though the
> Administration has a contingency plan in place for how the NGI project
> might meet its' goals with less funding than requested. If the
> Administration is to obtain the support needed for NGI, it apparently
> should heed Sensenbrenner's warnings and take a more proactive stance
> in promoting NGI and responding to congressional concerns. In the
> short term it is too late: it is most likely that funding for the
> upcoming fiscal year will be far less than the Administration's
> expectations.
>
> To review the NGI hearing testimony:
> http://www.ngi.gov/testimony.html
>
> CATO INSTITUTE HOLDS FORUM ON THE FUTURE OF TELECOM DEREGULATION
>
> September 12 - The CATO Institute held a day-long forum on the future
> of telecommunications deregulation, with panelists representing the
> U.S. and foreign governments, business sector, and various think tanks
> discussing issues from interconnection to ownership of the spectrum to
> industrial policy and information have-nots. The Telecommunication Act
> of 1996 was critiqued by some panelists as not meeting the claims of
> its' proponents: that it would encourage more competition, providing
> more choices for consumers at competitive prices. The day's forum
> reflected the impatience with the FCC expressed by many in the
> telecommunication's industry for not facilitating this promise.
>
> Tom Bell of CATO cited the FCC request for $219 million in funding for
> 1998 as a signal that the agency is trying to wield more power, not
> less as should happen in a deregulated marketplace. Bell's sentiments
> were echoed throughout the day as other panelists called for the
> dissolution of the FCC, most likely via sunset provisions on
> regulations such as when the Bell Companies can enter the long
> distance market. Barry Levin defended the FCC in noting its' progress
> in responding to conservative requests such as auctioning off the
> spectrum. He warned that millions will be spent on litigation fees if
> common law is used as a catalyst for deregulation, and noted the
> confusion that will ensue if each state is allowed to set their own
> deregulation policies.
>
> The question posed by Peter Huber reflected the theme of the day -
> "Where is the end game?" or "How will we know when deregulation is
> accomplished?" Erik Olbeter of the Economic Strategy Institute was
> right on the mark when he stated that no policy regime would be
> successful in meeting all of the objectives of deregulation, whatever
> your definition may be (price deregulation, market deregulation,
> abolishment of all government intrusion). What is needed today is a
> deregulation transition period. Regulations, despite their
> inefficiencies, may be necessary during such a transition period.
> Subsequent speakers offered their views on how this might be
> accomplished, citing the economic, technological and political factors
> that facilitate and hinder deregulation for different
> telecommunication sectors. Despite the excellent presentations, it is
> doubtful that Huber's question will result in a consensus any time
> soon. Rather, this debate will continue to heat up as Congress takes a
> second look at the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
>
> Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update"
> is a service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers. We
> gratefully acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked
> Information (CNI) for additional support. If you would like more
> information about the Update or would like to offer comments or
> suggestions, please contact Garret Sern at garret@farnet.org.