Friends and Mentors, A week or two ago Gene Crick suggested I stir the pot a bit by posing my questions about state level efforts (either from states or public interest parties) to intervene in the recent/pending mergers/takeover: SBC/ATT and now MCI/Verizon. I delayed doing so because I wanted a better frame for the question.
Several years ago, when SBC sought to acquire Ameritech, an "intervention" was initiated by private party (Don Samuelson/DSSA) for the "public interest". This was possible, in part, because Illinois law had a provision that directed that some of the cost savings be returned to the public. Keeping it short, as a result several things happened: other parties became involved, special funds were established to adress the "digital divide", both from telecom infrastructure (still not spent! as trigger conditions may have been difficult to achieve) and public-access & training perspectives. (Illinios Community Technology Fund, and a "voluntary contribution fund" administered by our dept of commerce that telco's paid into over several years - the latter being a result of leverage the legislature had at the time duriing the last rewrite of Illnois telecom law). I wasn't active in these issues then, and am not here to document an exact history, so forgive any errors and ommissions. My purpose here is in a concerted public interest response to the recent/proposed mergers, and that such response be coordinated to target each potential level and lever we have available. I have posed the following questions in several contexts (locally and to a few of you perhaps directly)... On what basis can the states (such as Illinois, where I reside) place conditions upon the merger (recognizing they cant stop the mergers(right?)), from state level agencies such as AG or other body, or on what basis can private parties such as public interest groups do so, and an equally important part of the general queston: what resources would be required to push forward such intervention, (and ancillary: any thoughts on mobilizing such resources)? The limited advice/info I have received thus far was 1) key parties at national level have filed with FCC but its likely to move forward anyway (which I understood ... It wasn't as much a question of stopping the merger as having leverage to impose requirements in public interest) 2) check with key local groups to see if they were willing to do something or if they saw value in this, in our case, specifically the "Citizens Utility Board" (CUB). On the local side... Illinois, as several other states has been facing a legislative challenge with rewrite of the state level telecom law, and the ILECs pursuing anti-muni provisions. Local parties were heavily engaged in fighting that effort, and Illinois has succeeded in what I think was the best outcome for now: we extended the current law by two years, in anticipation of comuning federal rewrite, and we were able to get the state to kick in 5 mil of general revenue towards digital literacy funds which are scheduked to dry up, as the "voluntary contributions" period is also expiring. So, groups like CUB, Illinois PIRG, and Citizen Action, as well as other groups including IMUA, etc. (Not to list them all) ... And grass roots efforts mobilized by ilCTC and CTCNet Chicago played a role in this, and most of our attention was absorbed in maintaining existing law to keep consumer protections in place and to maintain the option of communities to invest in themslevs or through public-private partnership. We didn't want another pennsylvania. (As Jim Baller says: remember the Lusitania.) With the level of resources required for that fight I have not witnessed any movement on the local front to respond to the mergers. Not sure if it is a question of the perceived value, or a calculation based on resources available, or organizational priority, or even mandate. James Lau and friends in California have passed on info on efforts there to act in the public interest and impose requirements on the merged entity. (If someone can cite the California law it might be instructive) I am very glad of California's effort. I take to heart the nostrum issued at the National Media Reform Conference: initiate a response along every point in the chain where we can mobilize to have leverage. Now, rep. Sessions of TX has introduced the federal level legislation in the attempt to achieve what the ILECs havent been able to do in the states. I don't agree with leaving the fight at the national level and before the FCC. I agree with efforts fo Free Press and McChesney et al to call for public forums across the country with regard to federal rewrite. I think that some of the propensity to accept the "climate" and the power of the incumbents as determining largely what is expected as a less than sensible policy needs to be shaken off. I see a lot of allies mobilizing, and the potential for more. We don't have to "settle" for a policy of scraps. Some of my language can be taken as rhetorical, but I believe a multifaceted approach will be called for and am capable of subtlety on occasion. But we need to disseminate the deep knowledge present here to diverse audiences. In the interest of advancing the topic I have presented here, I would appreciate any advice (or correction) offered, and also suggestion of best place to have the required discussions or even the planning and coordination of action. I recognize that there is a presupposition in this missive: that there should be some return to the public from the communications industry, in a modern equivalent of universal service for the digital/internet age. I'll try and pose another question/frame regarding models where that can be sensibly discussed, and ask you to take this presupposition for granted for the moment. I know that some of us here self-describe as being pink in red states, but that there are also those with strong libertarian proclivities. I greatly respect the folks on this list, and I thank you in advance. Michael ______________________________________________________________ Michael Maranda President, The Association For Community Networking (AFCN) Acting Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Consortium (ilCTC) Vice President, CAAELII Vice President, NPOTechs http://www.afcn.org http://www.ctcnetchicago.org http://www.ilctc.org http://www.caaelii.org http://www.npotechs.org _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
