The Washington Update 7-16-98

[Jeff Ogden]

FYI
  -Jeff

>From: Garret Sern <gsern@educause.edu>
>To: "'legup@farnet.org'" <legup@farnet.org>
>Subject: The Washington Update 7-16-98
>Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:52:48 -0600
>
>EDUCAUSE: Transforming Education Through Information Technologies
>
>THE WASHINGTON UPDATE --- JULY 16, 1998
>
>IN THIS ISSUE:
>
>FCC HOLDS EN BANC HEARING ON BROADBAND NETWORK ACCESS
>
>NETWORKING INDUSTRY GROUP OFFERS NEW APPROACH TO BREAK ENCRYPTION
>IMPASSE
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>FCC HOLDS EN BANC HEARING ON BROADBAND NETWORK ACCESS
>
>The FCC held an en banc hearing on broadband access issues last week,
>focusing on small and rural communities' ability to connect to the
>nation's telecommunications infrastructure.
>
>The FCC seeks to provide industry incentives for high-speed connections
>into the home, particularly in under-served areas. The RBOCs have argued
>that the current regulatory environment is the primary obstacle to
>widespread broadband access, as it apparently prevents the RBOCs from
>building high-speed networks within their local phone regions. In what
>some critics have called an "end-run" tactic by the RBOCs, Ameritech,
>Bell Atlantic and U.S. West have petitioned the FCC for entry into the
>interstate market as "advanced services providers" (read: broadband data
>network providers) under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. (The
>"end-run" critics argue that this is simply a tactic to avoid the
>14-point local-competition checklist which must be met before the RBOCs
>may enter the long-distance market).  The FCC is expected to issue a
>ruling on the consolidated RBOC petition by August 8.
>
>It is far from clear how the RBOC petitions will play out, particularly
>in relation to a Telecommunications Act clause that directs the FCC to
>"encourage the development on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced
>telecommunications capacity to all Americans", using methods that
>"remove barriers to infrastructure investment". Another
>Telecommunications Act clause in section 706 directs the Commission to
>issue a notice of inquiry within 30 months of the Telecom Act's passage
>to study the availability of advanced networking capability to all
>Americans.
>
>A range of telecommunication providers was represented at the en banc,
>including wireless, long-distance and local carriers. Some panelists
>urged the Commission to stick to its guns and not allow the RBOCs access
>to interstate markets under Sec. 706.  Panelists  also suggested that
>the FCC should take a minimalist approach to encouraging the
>marketplace, and that the Commission should ensure that competitors get
>access to incumbent facilities at fair prices.
>
>In a related speech on broadband access last month, FCC Chairman William
>Kennard stated that "all companies are new entrants when it comes to
>these services, and I see no need for price regulation."  While
>apparently favoring the lifting of regulations in order to encourage the
>telecom industry to deploy broadband services at a quicker pace, Kennard
>admits the FCC has no clear plan at the time to achieve this goal.
>
>Meanwhile, the RBOCs are waiting for the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of
>Appeals in New Orleans to render its decision on allowing the bell
>companies immediate entry into the long-distance market. Last year, U.S.
>District Court Judge Joe Kendall ruled that Sec. 271 of the
>Telecommunications Act unfairly singled out the RBOCs, while other
>telecom providers such as GTE were allowed to sell interstate services.
>The government immediately appealed Judge Kendall's decision, and it is
>possible that the dispute will end up in the Supreme Court.
>
>To date, the FCC has not approved any RBOC application to enter the
>long-distance market under Sec. 271. This has drawn heavy criticism from
>some key members of Congress, who have grown impatient with the
>Commission for not providing clearer guidelines for the RBOCs' efforts
>to meet the 14-point local-competition checklist.
>
>For en banc testimony: http://www.fcc.gov/enbanc/070998/eb070998.html
>
>
>NETWORKING INDUSTRY GROUP OFFERS NEW APPROACH TO BREAK ENCRYPTION
>IMPASSE
>
>A computer-industry group led by Cisco Systems, Inc. unveiled a new
>approach to encryption technology this Monday that supposedly would keep
>electronic messages secure, while enabling law-enforcement the ability
>to "listen-in" on e-mail conversations when legally necessary. This new
>proposal relies on the cooperation of system administrators and the use
>of routers to sniff out email messages before they reach the Internet
>and before they are encrypted. (Routers are the devices, or in some
>cases software, within computers that determine where to direct data
>traffic).
>
>The White Paper proposal, produced by Cisco Systems, Inc.,  explains the
>"operator action" model:  "Simply stated, qualifying products must
>incorporate an operator-controlled management interface that enables
>dynamic, real-time access to specified network traffic prior to
>encryption, or after decryption, at a designated access point."
>(http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/july98/2.html)
>
>The industry proposal goes on to state that it "delivers a 'private
>door-bell,' not a 'house-key' to parties lawfully seeking access to
>data." The proposal apparently would allow unlimited encryption during
>the transfer of information over the Internet, but would provide law
>enforcement the ability to gain access to unencrypted text at the
>beginning and end of each transmission.  The new approach is dependent
>on two factors for it to work: 1) knowledge by law enforcement of the
>sender's or receiver's e-mail address; and 2) the cooperation of the
>systems administrator to initiate this new program (once a court order
>is issued), which enables routers to sniff out the message based on the
>e-mail address.  The information in the message may then be recorded
>before it leaves the computer and becomes encrypted.
>
>The new proposal is not without significant problems, however. If both
>parties encrypt their transmissions before sending, the communication
>would be still be impossible to read. (Applications-level software such
>as Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) enables the user to encrypt messages before
>they leave the computer and hit the router).
>
>Ten of the thirteen companies promoting this new plan filed petitions
>with the Department of Commerce last week asking permission to export
>encryption products that would be consistent with the "operator action"
>approach. The encryption products they hope to export are all stronger
>than the 56-bit export restriction; the companies are hoping that the
>"operator action" plan will sufficiently alleviate fears that led to the
>restriction. American computer software companies have long argued that
>they are being unfairly limited in foreign markets because foreign
>competitors are not restricted in their distribution of an encryption
>product stronger than 56-bit. Currently, 128-bit encryption is available
>for sale on the world market.
>
>The Departments of Commerce and Justice have promised to review the
>industry proposal over upcoming weeks.
>
>To view the industry White Paper proposal:
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/july98/2.html
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Written from EDUCAUSE's Washington office, "The Washington Update" is a
>free service of EDUCAUSE. If you would like more information about the
>Update or would like to offer comments or suggestions, please contact
>Garret Sern at gsern@educause.edu.
>
>EDUCAUSE: Transforming Education Through Information Technologies.
>
>(http://www.educause.edu)