FARNET's Washington Update

[Jeff Ogden]

FYI
  -Jeff

>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:10:45 -0500
>To: legup@farnet.org
>From: Heather Boyles <heather@farnet.org>
>Subject: FARNET's Washington Update
>
>FARNET's Washington Update --- January 31, 1997
>
>IN THIS ISSUE:
>
>-  TIIAP 1997 grant round announcement
>
>-  GII paper from administration solicits comments
>
>-  Computer and Internet industry still finding voice at FCC on access
>charge and e-rate issues
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^
>
>TIIAP 1997 GRANT ROUND ANNOUNCEMENT
>
>This past Monday (January 27, 1997) the TIIAP (Telecommunications and
>Information Infrastructure Assistance Program), a program of the National
>Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of
>Commerce, announced its 1997 grant round.  TIIAP will award $18.5M in
>grants for 1997.  As it has in past years, TIIAP will hold a number of
>regional grant information seminars.  More information about the grant
>round and the regional seminars can be found at
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/tiiap/current.htm .
>
>The TIIAP is just a fraction of what it might have been, according to
>Clinton first-term plans for the program within the scope of the
>adminstration's whole NII efforts.  TIIAP funding was severely trimmed in
>the 1995 round as a newly-elected Republican Congress decided to take aim
>at any program even associated with the Dept. of Commerce.  Although it has
>hung in there, the program has never fully recovered to an expected funding
>level of $100M in grants for the 1995 fiscal year.
>
>There has been a significant change in the types of projects that TIIAP
>will fund for 1997.  Previously, the program has funded projects in three
>categories:  access, demonstration and planning projects. This year, TIIAP
>says that it will retain the original scope of projects (to include:
>community-wide networking, education, culture and lifelong learning,
>health, public and community services, and public safety), but evaluate all
>proposals on a common set of criteria.
>
>The grant proposal deadline is March 27, 1997.
>
>
>GII PAPER FROM ADMINISTRATION SOLICITS COMMENTS
>
>A draft policy paper entitled, "A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce"
>was released last December by the Clinton administration.  The paper is
>available at http://www.iitf.nist.gov/electronic_commerce.htm Drafting of
>the paper was led by Clinton Senior Advisor for Policy Development, Ira
>Magaziner (an alum of the Clinton administration's first-term healthcare
>reform efforts).  The policy paper covers a number of national and
>international issues, including intellectual property, security, privacy
>and cryptography export, taxation and electronic payment systems.  It also
>addresses international market access issues mostly concerning standards
>and interoperability.
>
>The main gist of the paper - as emphasized in its executive summary - is
>that the U.S. should promulgate non-regulatory, market-oriented solutions
>to most all of the issues addressed in the paper. On the subject of
>taxation, the paper interprets those principles to mean that essentially
>"no new taxes" should be imposed on Internet commerce.  Only existing tax
>regimes should apply and those would have to do so in the context of the
>potential anonymity of both buyers and sellers and the potentially high
>volume of small cost transactions.
>
>On the other hand, the draft paper appears just slightly contradictory when
>it comes to the discussion about cryptography export policy - especially
>given the administration's efforts to hang on to the key escrow/key
>recovery rules it is currently drafting at the Department of Commerce.
>Magaziner appeared a couple of weeks ago at a Washington, DC roundtable
>group that discusses telecommunications policy. He indicated there that he
>thought the non-regulatory, market-oriented principles espoused in the
>policy paper would likely prevail, but conceded a readily apparent split
>between the law enforcement agencies and the rest of the administration on
>the issue.
>
>Comments are actually due today, January 31, 1997 on the paper, but from
>viewing other's comments at http://www.iitf.nist.gov/eleccomm/feedback.htm
>it doesn't look like many serious comments have been submitted.  Comments
>can be sent to gii@a1.eop.gov.
>
>
>COMPUTER AND INTERNET INDUSTRY STILL FINDING VOICE AT FCC ON ACCESS CHARGE
>AND E-RATE ISSUES
>
>The computer and Internet service provider industries are in the thick of
>much of the current rule-makings at the FCC.  The debate on Internet
>congestion of local telephone infrastructure rages on in connection with
>the RBOCs efforts to get ISPs to pay access charges to cover the additional
>expenses of upgrading telco facilities allegedly facing such "congestion."
>At the same time, the computer and ISP industries are laying low over the
>so-called "E-rate" proposal that has come out of the universal service
>proceedings still underway at the FCC.  The E-rate proposal is the one that
>would give discounts on anything from telephone lines to internet access to
>routers and other customer premises equipment for schools and libraries to
>get connected to the net.  The computer industry is, according to several
>recent reports, apparently "neutral" on the subject of whether schools and
>libraries should even get the discounts while the some in the ISP industry
>are apparently keeping a low profile in the discussions over how such
>discounts should be financed through the Universal Service Fund.
>
>The main reason both have declined to comment on the touchy discount issue
>is the fear that if they, as industries, become eligible to receive
>reimbursement for the services provided to schools under the E-rate plan,
>both industries could also come under pressure to pay into the universal
>service fund - which neither does presently.  Add this to the heat that the
>ISPs are feeling on paying access charges to local telephone companies, and
>such developments could spell big trouble for the computer and
>communications industry down the road.
>
>On the other hand, the FCC has appeared very reluctant to impose access
>charges on ISPs despite the intense pressure from the RBOCs.  Of course, if
>most of the RBOCs haven't realized it already, they're also about to lose
>their simplistic arguments, because most of them either already have
>entered, or have plans to enter both the long distance industry and the
>Internet service provider industry - essentially cooking their own geese,
>if they have their way in these initial fights.
>
>In addition, the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service's
>recommendation to the FCC did not contemplate having all recipients of
>reimbursement for E-rate discounts actually pay into the Universal Service
>Fund.  But the rules for universal service have not yet been released.  The
>FCC must act on the Joint Board's recommendations yet this spring and one
>of the major items left uncertain by the Joint Board's recommendations was
>exactly this issue of who should pay what into the Universal Service Fund.
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^
>Thanks to Ross Stapleton-Gray for contributing to the report on the Clinton
>administration's GII policy paper.
>
>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.
>


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