NetAction Notes

Published by NetAction Issue No. 81 February 19, 2002
Repost where appropriate. See copyright information at end of message.

IN THIS ISSUE:

ACTION ALERT: Vote Scheduled on Bell Deregulation Bill
A Second Look at NetAction's Security Survey Results and Microsoft Comments
About NetAction Notes

ACTION ALERT: Vote Scheduled on Bell Deregulation Bill

* * * Circulate this alert until February 27, 2002 * * *

Contents of this alert:

  1. Oppose H.R. 1542 (The Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001)
  2. Why this bill is bad news for consumers
  3. Talking points
  4. Who to contact in Congress
  5. More background

1) Oppose H.R. 1542

A bill that would eliminate key consumer protections in telecommunications is scheduled for a floor vote on February 27, 2002, in the House of Representatives. NetAction is urging Internet users to contact their House representative today to urge a "no" vote on H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. The bill poses a threat to the continued deployment of affordable broadband and dial-up Internet services, both of which are crucial to bridging the digital divide. In addition, state regulators have warned that the bill could exacerbate the decline in service quality that consumers have experienced under deregulation. (See: http://www.naruc.org/tauzin_dingell.pdf.)

2) Why this bill threatens broadband Internet access

H.R. 1542 would free the four remaining Bell phone monopolies -- SBC Communications, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest Communications International -- from their obligation to open their networks to competitors. Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who co-authored H.R. 1542 with Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, is an unabashed Bell supporter.

One of the key consumer protections that Congress included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the requirement that the Bells open their local phone markets to competition before they are allowed into the long distance markets. This requirement is the only incentive the Bells have to treat their customers and competitors fairly. H.R. 1542 would waive this requirement for long distance data markets, giving the Bells control of the nation's telecommunications and technology infrastructure and threatening the future deployment of both broadband and dial-up Internet access, as well as of competitive telephone service. The result for consumers would be less choice, lower quality service and higher prices for everything from basic phone service to Internet access.

3) Talking points

4) Who to contact in Congress

News reports indicate a floor vote is scheduled for February 27, 2002. Calls to all House members are urgently needed.

All House members can be contacted through the Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Or visit http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html to look up your Representative's direct House or District phone number. (If you don't know who represents your district, the site includes a zip code search tool to locate your Representative.)

5) More background

Tauzin's claim that allowing the Bells into long distance data markets before local phone markets are truly competitive is necessary to ensure widespread deployment of broadband, particularly in rural communities, is an old ploy. In fact, it's one the Bells have used before.

In June 2000 NetAction released a comprehensive report describing how the Bells had broken the promises they made to regulators in the 1990s to deploy high-speed fiber optic networks. (See http://www.netaction.org/broadband/bells.) In many instances the promises to deploy fiber optic networks were made in exchange for relief from important pro-consumer regulations. In many states where regulators went along with these schemes, traditional rate-of-return regulation - intended to protect consumers from profit-gouging - was replaced with incentive or price cap regulation.

The new regulatory schemes gave the Bells more profits, ostensibly to be used to build the promised fiber optic networks. But instead of building the networks, the companies simply pocketed the higher profits. This is one of the reasons that the four remaining Bell monopolies are among the most profitable companies in the nation.

If the Bells had made a good faith effort to meet the conditions spelled out in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we might already have vigorous competition in both broadband and local phone service. But the Bells chose instead to stonewall competition by engaging in protracted legal and regulatory maneuvers, and by lobbying Congress to change the law. Changing the Act now would reward the Bells for failing to follow the rules.

In addition to threatening the future availability of affordable broadband and dial-up Internet access, H.R. 1542 could lead to higher phone bills. The bill broadly preempts state regulators, leaving the states with only limited authority over voice phone services.


A Second Look at NetAction's Security Survey Results and Microsoft Comments

Because of problems with NetAction's list software, many of our readers did not receive the last issue of NetAction Notes (No. 80, published Jan. 29, 2002). The issue included the results of our survey of computer security practices in nonprofit organizations, and a pointer to NetAction's comments on the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Now that our list is working again, we wanted to provide those pointers again for readers who missed the last issue.

The Security Practices Survey

Our report on the survey results, "Computer Practices in Nonprofit Organizations," is available at: http://netaction.org/security/.

Despite the growing importance of computers to nearly every aspect of nonprofit operations, our survey found substantial room for improvement, especially in maintaining the security of confidential and/or sensitive files, user work habits, and disaster planning.

Many of the respondents acknowledged the need to improve their security practices. When asked to identify specific security issues their organization needs to address, about two-thirds of the survey respondents listed user work habits and disaster planning, about half listed data backups and encryption, and about one third listed virus protection and firewalls.

The Microsoft Comments

NetAction's comments on the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement are at: http://www.netaction.org/msoft/doj-comments.html. They are also included in the listing of major comments published recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-major.htm.

NetAction and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) filed joint comments warning that consumers will have to make substantial investments in new hardware and software in order to benefit from the terms of the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. NetAction and CPSR argued that the proposal is not in the public interest and urged Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to either reject the proposed settlement or order additional proceedings to eliminate its many ambiguities.

If you want to read the whole issue, it's at: http://www.netaction.org/notes/notes80.html.


About NetAction Notes

NetAction Notes is a free electronic newsletter, published by NetAction. NetAction is a California-based non-profit organization dedicated to promoting use of the Internet for grassroots citizen action, and to educating the public, policy makers, and the media about technology policy issues.

To subscribe to NetAction Notes, send a message to: . The body of the message should state: subscribe netaction
To unsubscribe at any time, send a message to: . The body of the message should state: unsubscribe netaction

For more information contact Netaction by phone at 415-215-9392, by E-mail at

info -at- netaction.org, visit the NetAction Web site, or write to:

NetAction * P.O. Box 6739 * Santa Barbara, CA 93160

Copyright 1996-2003 by NetAction. All rights reserved. Material may be reposted or reproduced for non-commercial use provided NetAction is cited as the source.