The 8-17-99 article in Salon by Mark Gimein may represent the weakest reasoning yet for the patently absurd arguments in defense of AT&T, as it attempt to remove competitors in the cable modem business. Mr. Gimein argues that if local regulators are allowed to restrict AT&T's demand to have an monopoly, it will supposedly open the door for local regulations to restrict other things. The examples he then gives are a prosecutor in Tennessee seeking to sanction a pornographer in California, the U.S. government blocking the Web site of a casino in Antigua and China trying to shut down a pro-Taiwan Web site in New York. The comparison has no legitimacy whatsoever. A Tennessee prosecutor attacking a California pornographer, the US blocking an Antigua casino and China battling a New York website are all cases in which jurisdiction is the defining issue. In all three cases listed, the governmental body does not have its opponent within its domain, so its power to regulate simply doesn't exist. AT&T, having obtained an exclusive contract with the local government agencies (such as Portland) trying to regulate AT&T's never agreed upon usage of cable lines, is most certainly under the jurisdiction of these local governments. Mr. Gimein then tries to bring up the boogeyman of content suppression, indicating that allowing local governments the right to regulate business contracts opens up the door to restricting certain web pages through its service. This again is a frivolous argument. Restricting web pages is an issue of Constitutional First Amendment rights, issues not even remotely involved with in the AT&T battle, despite the company's whine. Once again, AT&T has contracted to provide services to local governments, and so this is an issue involving contractual rights, not Constitutional rights. Last time I checked, AT&T did not have a Constitutional freedom to screw customers on a whim via sweetheart business deals. In fact, Mr. Gimein misses the reverse dangers of giving AT&T a free reign over Internet access: that they may regulate access to the net for its own benefit. It is quite possible that AT&T may restrict the access of web pages critical to its business dealings or those high up in its corporate structure. Should local governments allow them to do this blindly? This is not a frivolous issue. The current CEO of AT&T is C. Michael Armstrong. Previously, Mr. Armstrong was the head of Hughes Electronics, and during his tenure there, he became so involved with trade issues involving China, the lax security of Hughes, and the backing of Clinton's presidential campaign that there are many who believe he is legally complicit in the Chinese spy scandal, and some who argue that he is guilty of treason. This certainly can be debated, but when the same individual controls cable internet access to 60% of the country, such debate can be effectively silenced. All this leads to a better explanation for the FCC's blind defense of AT&T than anything Mr. Gimein presented in the article. Armstrong, having financed Clinton's presidential ambitions and being a serious partner in one of his worst scandals, is owed a big favor by the Commander-In-Chief. The chips are being called in, so the FCC is backing AT&T's absurd defense as payback. Of course, Salon, being a generally glib and lightweight news service, may smirk at such talk as conspiracy theory, as part of its general style to replace thoughtful analysis with smarmy fluff. And perhaps such an explanation is a false conspiracy theory. However, even if this is the case, at least it has some remote chance of being legitimate, rather than the poorly reasoned arguments Mr. Gimein has put out in defense for AT&T. Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Local regulators and the Net AT&T's battle against open access to its cable system is about Internet infrastructure. What if it were about Internet content? - - - - - - - - - - - - By Mark Gimein August 17, 1999 | If you have been following the debate over open access to AT&T's recently acquired cable systems, you'll know that some district courts have sided with cities like Portland, Ore., which has demanded that AT&T allow competing Internet access providers to use its cable system. On Monday the Federal Communications Commission filed a "friend of the court" brief opposing the Oregon ruling. On Tuesday, Excite@Home, the high-speed Net service provider, will follow suit with a brief of its own, asking the court to overturn its decision. "Allowing 30,000 local governments to impose a raft of new, burdensome rules will significantly delay the development and deployment of high-speed Internet services," says an Excite@Home news release about its brief. When federal bureaucrats and big business lobbyists are on the same side, my natural tendency is to look for a fly in the ointment. In this case, however, the feds and big business have a point. Consumer advocates tend to portray open access as an issue of business interests vs. consumers. In truth, it really is more complicated. The paradox of the communications age is that even as the vast network of interlaced media and communications technologies becomes ever more national or even international in scope, local governments wield a progressively more fearsome regulatory stick. The paradox emerges because every local government threatens, by regulating within its jurisdiction, to exercise a kind of veto power over national policy. The shape of national telecommunications policy, painstakingly crafted within the corridors of Congress and the FCC, effectively becomes hostage to the desires of one or 10 or 100 local legislative bodies. Liberals tend to like the effects in this case. They like the idea of a good deal for consumers, and they dislike, with good reason, the procession of industry lobbyists crowding into local government offices and trying to pass themselves off as a grass-roots movement. The danger is that if the principle of local regulation is extended to other areas, the effects might turn out to be a lot harder to like. The local preeminence that might lower cable modem rates in Portland is the same one that a prosecutor in Tennessee appeals to when he seeks to sanction a pornographer in California, that the U.S. government appeals to when it seeks to block the Web site of a casino in Antigua and that China can appeal to when it tries to shut down a pro-Taiwan Web site in New York. Lots of experience says that the tendency of governments is to regulate, and the tendency of big multinational corporations is to cave under pressure. The more international companies are subject to the whims of local regulators in one area -- infrastructure -- the more they will be subject to those same whims in another -- content. Regardless of where one stands on regulating infrastructure, I suspect most people will oppose regulating content. The danger is that as the court battles heat up, the two might end up going hand in hand. salon.com | August 17, 1999
