Call in the Feds

The U.S. government must not shirk its regulatory responsibilities regarding the data highway

Andy Reinhardt

Many of the letters I received about my article on the data highway ("Building the Data Highway," March BYTE) said that the government shouldn't be involved. Sharing the assumption that the government is incompetent, they argued that the Feds shouldn't create, manage, or even regulate the data highway. Nowhere did I glean any historical perspective: That the very concept of a data highway wouldn't be in the offing if not for government-funded research of previous-generation projects, which launched the Internet and helped create many of today's communications systems. Nor did anybody acknowledge other successful federal projects, such as the interstate system or the space program.

Clearly, the federal government is capable of massive projects. In fact, its involvement may be essential when an undertaking is larger than any state, corporation, or consortium can manage. Yet, from President Clinton on down, policymakers in Washington are taking a "pragmatic" approach to the data highway, promoting a private model with public oversight. By granting such a huge opportunity for power and profits to the private sector, we have a right as a society to demand, in return, conformance with certain standards and practices.

What ought to be the proper role of the government in the data highway? It's a threefold proposition: helping to set technical specifications, protecting constitutional rights, and ensuring equality of access. All three are well founded in media and telecommunications law. The government's role need not expand. The current relationships among the government, private enterprise, consumers, and nonprofit groups will persist.

Given its power of regulation, especially over communications channels, t he government could employ a number of business models. The Bell System grew up as a regulated monopoly and is now an oligopoly, cable franchises are renewable monopolies, and cellular rights are duopolies. But for the data highway, the model should be diversity. The promise of a switched, digital world is freedom of choice: One moment you might be hooked into a free government database, the next to a private mail carrier, and the next to an unregulated, premium-priced entertainment channel. There will be low-cost and high-cost services, the equivalent of choosing between the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Express.

The trickiest policy question is how to ensure universal access. If data-highway access requires something more sophisticated than an inexpensive telephone, the cost of getting on-line may be prohibitive for some. Telephones and TVs aren't subsidized today, but if using the data highway becomes an essential aspect of citizenship, devices will need to be made available to everybody, regardle ss of means.

As for service access, the dilemma is what level ought to be considered an acceptable minimum. The solution is to follow the lead of cable, where differing rungs of service range from a mandated minimum through premium and pay-per-view. Very inexpensive services might include access to community BBSes, use of a local library, the ability to contact government agencies (e.g., for permits), and the ability to access commercial services paid for by the provider (e.g., dial-a-pizza). And you could send the electronic equivalent of a postcard or letter or, for more money, multimedia or encrypted mail.

Some people won't be able to afford the combined cost of an access device and service, or won't want the data highway reaching into their homes. For them, today's pay telephones and bars showing sports channels will be supplemented by neighborhood information kiosks. The data highway will be far more diverse than anything we can imagine today.

But Washington policymakers must be the ultimate arbitrators between possible conflicting private interests. I believe the profit opportunities are so great, the potential for power so strong, that the government could extract greater concessions from data-highway players than it has proposed over fear that stringent regulation will cripple private initiatives in building the data highway. If this scares off some potential players, so be it: Creating a new information infrastructure for the twenty-first century is not a job for the faint of heart. If we are to fully enjoy the benefits of the data highway, without sacrificing an unacceptable amount of social control, we need to set the terms now and be vigilant that they are adhered to.

---

Andy Reinhardt is BYTE's West Coast bureau chief. He can be reached on MCI Mail at 536-9124 or on the Internet or BIX at areinhardt mitchellrice@bix.com .