FARNET's Washington Update

[Jeff Ogden]

>X-Sender: heather@198.60.132.2
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 17:55:10 +0100
>To: legup@farnet.org, policy@educom.edu
>From: Heather Boyles <heather@farnet.org>
>Subject: FARNET's Washington Update
>
>FARNET's Washington Update --- September 27, 1996
>
>IN THIS ISSUE:
>
>o  End of legislative session wrap-up
>        - copyright
>        - encryption
>        - appropriations
>
>o  Legislation on tap for 105th Congress
>        - FCC reform
>        - Telecom corrections bill
>
>o  FYI:  Bellcore to be sold to SAIC
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^
>
>END OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION WRAP-UP
>
>As the 104th session of Congress winds down, a number of legislative
>initiatives will be left dangling.  Because of the new session, legislation
>will have to be re-introduced in 1997.
>
>A review of where issues covered here in the past stand:
>
>        COPYRIGHT
>
>While several copyright-oriented bills have occupied legislators this
>session, primarily of interest are the so-called "NII Copyright Protection"
>bills (S.1284/HR2441) that were to implement the suggestions of the Clinton
>administration's White Paper on Intellectual Property and the NII.
>Although the House bill in particular had strong support for passage this
>year from its committee chairman, both the Senate and House bills stumbled
>on several counts.
>
>The major obstacle was over third-party liability.  Various negotiations
>between the telecom carriers, on-line and Internet access industry and
>content-creation industry seemed to come to a workable compromise in late
>spring/early summer. A review of the compromise language is here:
>http://www.farnet.org/washupd5-17-96.html
>
>Several other issues continued to hinder the legislation's progress though,
>including the so-called "black box" provisions which dealt with mechanisms
>for circumventing copyright.
>
>It's a little unclear what next session will hold for S.1284/HR2441.  Both
>Rep. Moorhead (chair of the House subcommittee with jursidiction over the
>bill) and his ranking member Rep. Schroeder are retiring, and Sen. Hatch on
>the Senate side  this year seemed more than willing to wait for the tough
>issues (e.g. third-party liability) to be fought out in the House before he
>moved on with the legislation in the Senate.
>
>        ENCRYPTION
>
>The ongoing saga between the Clinton administration and industry promises
>to spill over into next session as well (that assumes, I suppose, that Dole
>doesn't make a speedy campaign recovery ;-).  Of primary interest to the
>networking community is the need for security on the Internet through
>encryption.
>
>S. 1726/HR3011 are bills sponsored by Sens.Burns and Leahy and Rep.
>Goodlatte respectively.  Both call for a significant lifting of export
>restrictions (currently at an upper limit of 40 bits) on encryption
>software and hardware and the prohibition of any government-mandated
>domestic key escrow system.  Industry has protested all incarnations of the
>administration's proposals for allowing exports of greater than 40 bit
>encryption if only manufacturers/users will leave a private key with a
>third party (at one time the government, now proposed private third party
>escrow agents) for access by law enforcement.
>
>Although the focus of the debate is on export restrictions, many feel that
>the impact would be felt by domestic U.S. users because of the global
>nature of the Internet - i.e., companies that wanted to regularly encrypt
>communications between and among its foreign
>suppliers/subsidiaries/customers would encounter an escrowed system
>somewhere along the line.
>
>Just this week Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick went before the House
>Judiciary committee to explain the administration's position once again.
>She was a tad hamstrung in her comments because the administration has yet
>to release its 'new' policy.  All indications are, however, that the
>administration's position has not moved significantly from where it has
>been in the last three or four policy statements.
>
>Both Senate and House sponsors of the bill have adamantly said that S.1726
>and H.R. 3011 will be high priority in the 105th Congress.  Again, short of
>drastic election results, the Clinton administration seems steadfast in its
>pro-key escrow (now being called "key recovery") system as well.
>
>        APPROPRIATIONS
>
>Appropriations for the FY97 (which begins Tuesday) is basically the only
>remaining issue keeping legislators from heading out of Washington for the
>year.  We're beginning to hear the words 'government shutdown,' but it
>looks likely that a compromise on an omnibus spending bill will be reached
>shortly.  Compromise has already been reached to maintain Commerce Dept.
>funding at at least last year's level - recall TIIAP's trials and
>tribulations from last week's Update.
>
>NSF's appropriations bill was signed today by the President, giving NSF
>$3.27 billion for FY97 - about a 2% raise over FY96 funding.
>
>
>LEGISLATION ON TAP FOR THE 105TH CONGRESS
>
>Along with those bills discussed above that will likely be re-introduced
>next session, there are a couple of other issues to be addressed early in
>the 105th.
>
>        FCC REFORM
>
>One issue is FCC reform.  Previous efforts here were put off in favor of
>getting the Telecom Reform Act passed early this year.  Provided that the
>Republicans hold on to both houses of Congress (which looks likely),
>reforming (read: downsizing) the FCC will be high on next year's agenda.
>Included in the reform bill may be some language concerning the FCC's
>jurisdiction (or lack thereof) over the Internet.  As reported here a few
>weeks ago, Rep. Rick White had attached an amendment to a short-lived FCC
>reform bill this session saying, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
>grant any jurisdiction or authority to the commission with respect to
>content or other regulation of the Internet or other interactive computer
>services."
>
>As Congress continues to keep close watch over the interconnection,
>universal service and access charge reform proceedings at the FCC, such an
>amendment may become highly controversial.  For example, the amendment
>might be construed to prevent the FCC from levying an access charge fee on
>ISPs connecting to local telephone companies - an issue that's already been
>the subject of much lobbying at the FCC and on the Hill.
>
>        TELECOM ACT CORRECTIONS
>
>Secondly, there could be legislation correcting some provisions of the
>Telecom Reform Act of 1996.  Chief among those corrections could be new
>language to "narrow" the scope of the Communications Decency Act.  After
>being struck down just months after its passage, the CDA awaits a hearing
>in the Supreme Court.
>
>While efforts to narrow the CDA may be well intentioned by some, others
>worry that narrower CDA language might not be struck down so forcefully by
>the courts.
>
>
>FYI:  BELLCORE TO BE SOLD TO SAIC
>
>In case you missed the myriad of press reports about Bellcore's sale this
>week: Bellcore (a FARNET member) is presently a research organization
>jointly owned by seven regional Bell operating companies.  The Bells
>announced earlier this week that they are in negotiations to sell Bellcore
>to SAIC (Science Applications International Corp.).
>
>SAIC also happens to own Network Solutions, Inc. which runs the InterNIC in
>a cooperative agreement with the NSF.  Bellcore, in conjunction with
>PacBell and Ameritech, won the original NSF awards to run the PacBell and
>Ameritech NAPs. (Recently, however, NSF announced that the NAPs had met
>with success and NSF funding of them would cease.)
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^
>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 for
>additional support.  If you would like more information about the Update or
>would like to offer comments or suggestions, please contact Heather Boyles
>at heather@farnet.org
>


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -