EFF's Open Platform, TAP, etc...

[James Love <love@essential.org>]

Distributed to TAP-INFO, a free Internet Distribution List
(subscription requests to listserver@essential.org) 

TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE

    The following note was sent to the telecomreg list, in response to 
comments from EFF's Mike Goodwin.  Basically, this is the tail end of a 
discussion on telecomreg about what the EFF Open Platform is and is not, 
as reflected in HR 3636.  TAP simply observed that the Open Platform 
provisions of HR 3636 do not apply to cable or video dialtone services, 
or the "set-top" box for video dialtone.  Some EFF supporters, including 
Mike Godwin, who works for EFF, seem a bit confused by this.  jamie

To:       Mike Goodwin, Online Counsel, EFF
From:     Jamie Love, TAP
Date:     March 15, 1994

Gordon Cook has forwarded to Telecomreg a message that you posted
elsewhere, where you said:

     EFF is for switched service.  Always has been.

     Jamie Love is always looking for reasons to criticize
     EFF.  I'm sure that he'll continue doing so even when
     CPSR's Washington office melts down this spring as Marc
     Rotenberg leaves.

I assume that you were responding to comments that I had posted
on Telecomreg, explaining our understanding of what the EFF Open
Platform would do (with regard to telephone service), and not do
(with regard to cable or video dialtone services).  I do not
think that it is fair that you dismiss my comments as someone
always looking to criticize EFF, both because your comments fail
to shed any light on an issue of considerable confusion regarding
EFF's Open Platform proposal, and because I do not see myself as
a dedicated EFF basher.

On the issue of EFF's Open Platform, I had indicated in
correspondence posted on Telecomreg that the Open Platform, as
reflected in HR 3636, would only apply to telephone service, and
that it was primarily a way to squeezing more mileage out of the
existing cooper wire telephone network infrastructure.  I also
said that this was a good idea, and that TAP supports the EFF
Open Platform.  However, I said people were wrong to assume that
the Open Platform had anything to do with cable or video dialtone
networks, and that EFF had not joined efforts to expand common
carriage or open access to cable and video dialtone platforms. 
Moreover, I indicated that EFF had not yet sent any messages to
Capitol Hill supporting legislative language that would require
owners of video dialtone networks to allow third party
competition for the so called "set top" hardware and software,
that will provide the user interface for the new broadband
networks.  This wasn't an attack on EFF, but an attempt to clear
up some confusion about what the EFF Open Platform was, and
wasn't.

I resisted requests that I speculate on why EFF has taken the
positions that it has, and I suggested that it would be much more
helpful if EFF would explain these matters for itself, and
indeed, EFF should just tell people what the facts are.  Knowing
that EFF and other groups have been rapidly re-evaluating their
positions as the legislation progresses, I am hopping that EFF
will take a more aggressive position on the matters of common
carriage in cable and video dialtone markets, and we would
welcome their involvement.

Regarding the suggestion that I am simply an EFF basher, I would
suggest that matters are more complex.  TAP recently joined EFF
in sending a letter to Congress in support of the EFF Open
Platform, and EFF recently joined TAP in sending a letter to the
FCC regarding the use of the Internet to make FCC proceedings
more accessible to citizens.  There are also a number of aspects
of EFF's work that would surprise a number of their critics on
the left (and perhaps surprise some of their supporters on the
right).  EFF has supported special non-profit rates for video
dialtone carriage, and last week EFF joined the Consumer
Federation of America, TAP, and other public interest groups and
state regulators, to oppose federal pre-emption of state rate
regulation, and to support strong anti-cross subsidy provisions
in HR 3636.  On this last matter in particular, EFF has taken a
public position which is vigorously opposed by the telephone
industry.

We have never doubted the sincerity of EFF or its Board of
Directors in its advocacy of digital copper wire technology (like
ISDN), and we welcome EFF's support on issues where we agree.

That said, there have been some areas of disagreement.  It is
true that I have questioned EFF's independence from its corporate
funders (an important issue which involves a number of groups
other than EFF as well), and we have also had differences on
issues of substance and philosophy.  For example, we take a much
more aggressive position than EFF on the public dissemination of
government information, and I believe we would endorse stronger
government intervention in the area of the private sale of
personal information.

Two of EFF's board members have recently indicated on David
Farber's Interesting People List that they are opposed to TAP's
efforts to have the FCC begin an inquiry on ways to enhance
democratic discourse on the Internet, and to accept comments on
proposals to require common carrier telephone companies to
provide flat rate access to the Internet.  This is a matter on
which reasonable people can disagree.

Again, however, these issues are complex, and simple labels often
do not apply.  EFF, for example, has spent more than a year
aggressively promoting extensive government regulation of
telephone company rates for digital connections.  The Open
Platform, after all, isn't about technology, but about prices. 
ISDN hasn't taken off because tariffs are often too high, and EFF
wants the government to use regulation to lower ISDN tariffs for
businesses and consumers.  (TAP agrees with EFF on this).

I would also like to emphasize that in testimony before Congress,
TAP has consistently taken positions that would expand the role
of competition in protecting consumers and producers of
information services (particularly today's "prosumers").  That is
why we support competition at the local loop (ending the
telephone company monopoly), a switched cable or video dialtone
architecture that allows the broadest entry (and consumer choice)
for information services (eliminating the "gatekeeper" role of
cable and video dialtone operators),  hardware and software
competition for the video dialtone user interface (allowing
consumers to decide which interface is best, for them), and
cross-ownership restrictions for the PCS wireless spectrum (so
that wireless services will compete head to head against "wired"
carriers).  We are also supporting a "consumer choice" model to
allocate funds for the support of non-commercial information
services, based upon the system used in the Netherlands, which
grants non-commercial broadcast time to non-profit organizations
in proportion to their "subscribers." 

For those who find the differences between TAP and EFF
interesting, I would suggest tuning in on March 29, when Ralph
Nader and Mitch Kapor appear together at the Benton Foundation
"Public Interest Summit" (Benton's title), which may be televised
and/or broadcast via Internet Radio.

Finally, I was surprised to see your gleeful references to the
"meltdown" of the Washington CPSR office, due to funding
difficulties.  I would caution you against assuming that success
in fundraising is a measure of the contributions to the public
good.  It's not how big your bank account is, its how you use it,
and by any objective measure, the Washington office of CPSR has
contributed much to public policies debates.  Marc Rotenberg,
David Sobel and David Banisar have given CPSR and the entire
online community a tremendous bang for the buck, which some
better funded groups would do well to emulate.

     James Love, TAP   
     love@essential.org
     voice: 202/387-8030 or 610/658-0880


ps:  three questions to clear up confusion about the EFF Open
     Platform

1.   As reflected, in HR 3636, would the Open Platform apply to
     cable or video dialtone services? 

2.   Does EFF support legislation requiring common carriage (or
     non-discriminatory leased access) for the entire cable and
     video dialtone platform?  Has EFF communicated this to
     Congress?

3.   Does EFF support legislation that would require open
     architecture and third party competition for the hardware
     and software used in the video dialtone "set-top" box? Has
     EFF communicated this to Congress?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer
Assets Project (TAP).  TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the
management of government property, including information systems and
data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government
assets.  TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal
information policy.  tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org;
gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org

Subscription requests to tap-info to listserver@essential.org with
the message:  subscribe tap-info your name
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC  20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet:  tap@essential.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------