The following text is copyright 1995 by
Network World, permission is hearby given for reproduction, as long as
attribution is given and this notice is included.
Is It A Small World
After All?
By: Scott Bradner
A few weeks ago I wrote
somewhat disparagingly about Senator Exon's ``Communications Decency Act of
1995.'' (NW 2.20.95) It seems that the good Senator has been persuaded that
legislating the technically impossible is not good form but the socially questionable
is still fair game.
Exon's bill has now been
incorporated into the general communications reform bill working its way
through the U.S. Senate. The bill which, if it passes as it now stands, will
let the regional Bell operating companies offer long distance service and make
a raft of other changes to what the communications companies see as the rules
of the road. It will be interesting to watch company executives who have always
operated under very strict regulations try and figure out how to play in a
world where the rules come down to 'make what people want at a price they want
to pay' rather than 'persuade the regulators to accept the correctness of your
corporate vision.'
Some of the sillier
provisions of Exon's bill were dropped before it was approved by the Senate
Commerce Committee. Gone are the rules that would have made the carriers of
data responsible for the content of that data. But what remains will still
cause some extensive discussions over the next few months. The current version
of the bill calls for the same extended jail terms and large fines as the old
version did but now the penalties await anyone who transmits "obscene,
lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent" material over a communications
network.
The New York Times felt
the issue important enough to put a story on the front page (above the fold)
with the poetic title "Smut Ban Backed on Computer Nets". But then
again the Times is not what one would call a conservative paper. I wonder how
much attention the more conservative journals will give this topic now that the
issues that threatened the basic business of the communications giants have
been removed, or at least shifted, to the individual users.
Many other people will
continue to express an interest in the progress of this part of the
legislation. The adjectives used in the legislation, do not have what one would
call concise definitions. There will be a quite legitimate, to me, worry that
the interpretation could vary more than a little from place to place.
It still seems to me
that there is a fundamental failure to recognize a change in paradigm going on
here. The failure is not a new one, nor is it confined to telecommunications.
Too many people seem to be operating at one level in the belief that the world
is just what they can touch, despite what they can see on the TV. They seem to
think that if some regulation is adopted to control some behavior that all of
those prone to that behavior are within reach. This may be true in the realm of
printed material where one can reach out and touch a printer or an importer. It
may even be true for TV since the non-satellite signals do not travel that far.
But it has not been true for quite a while in the area of short wave radio or
telephone. It clearly is not true with satellite TV or the Internet. The
promise and the threat of the Internet is that we are all everywhere.
In the Times article
Exon is quoted as saying "I am not about to throw up my hands and give
up." (This is within a day or two of his announcing that he was not going
to run for reelection.) I do not want to say that either. Clearly one must
strive to ensure that people who do not want to be exposed or should not be
exposed to material that is objectionable in one way or another be free from
the threat that they will be. I don't know how to do that. But I do know that
telling Mr. Bill that he can not send a risque limerick to Ms. Mary even with
her consent and somehow expecting that to apply to the complexly integrated
world of today is not the only answer. I'm not even sure it is a part of the
answer.
Speaking about
regulations, did the FCC sneak in a rule that requires all people portrayed in
cereal commercials be no smarter than the product they are advertising?
Disclaimer: Harvard has
affiliates all over the world and I'm sure understands that mores, like
politics, is all local but it has never told me that so this is only my
supposition and opinion.