The systems theorist Gerald Weinberg once postulated the First Law of
Change. To wit: "Cucumbers get more pickled than the brine gets
cucumbered." The moral in that may be that a small system operating
within the context of a much larger system is more likely to get changed
than to be the change agent.
The Clinton Administration has completed its first round of
pronouncements regarding the National Information Infrastructure (NII),
and the general topology seems quite compatible to the interests of
higher education. Our colleagues in the private sector seem well into
round two of merger mania as they try to position themselves for the
coming shakeout that will be occasioned by congressional action that
overhauls the nation's telecommunications policy.
One cannot help but be awed by the magnitude of the contour changes
that are taking place. Phone companies are buying cable companies, cable
companies are buying software houses, entertainment production companies
are vying to create new networks, cable companies are buying production
studios; the simple recital of new alliances is mind-boggling. The
Internet community--not so long ago the leading edge of
telecommunications applications--seems likely to be swamped by the
change in the regulatory environment and the new lines of business being
created in the private sector.
As the action shifts in Congress from committees with science
jurisdictions to those with regulatory oversight, and as a new
administration plants itself squarely in the phalanx of the forces for
change, it might be useful to extract the underlying principles and
motivations of the various players.
The Administration: The Clinton Administration has decided to play
cheerleader to congressional initiatives that will forever change the
nation's telecommunications landscape. In recent speeches and white
papers, the administration through Vice President Gore and Department of
Commerce Secretary Brown has identified five fundamental principles to
guide legislative and administrative reform:
* Encourage private investment in the NII.
* Promote and protect competition.
* Provide open access for consumers and service providers.
* Advance universal service to avoid creating haves and have-nots.
* Ensure flexibility to keep pace with rapid technologic and market
changes.
The application of these principles will likely be of most interest
to those of us in higher education as a new Title VII is added to the
Communications Act that will deal with providers of broadband, two-way,
switched digital services. The administration has already seemed to back
off its call to communications companies to provide "free" connections
for certain categories such as education and health care. In fact, the
question of just what constitutes "universal service" in two-way
broadband communications is likely to be hotly contested and intertwined
with the whole question of how certain groups (e.g., rural and low-
income users, education, and health care) are to be subsidized through
federal policy. The higher education community will need to participate
actively in the debate, because, historically, government policies in
this area have not been necessarily favorable to the avowed intent of
the policies.
The administration's infrastructure investment efforts will be
focused in the Department of Commerce. That department is still in the
process of formation and will, it is hoped, contain a number of folks
who understand telecommunications issues from something other than the
standpoint of TV/radio spectrum allocation. Notwithstanding this focus,
we should expect that the science and education agencies will assume, or
continue to assume, a leadership position for infrastructure investment
in educational arenas.
The Congress: Clearly, the major focus of activity is shifting from
the science committees to the regulatory committees. Whereas H.R. 1757--
a science committee bill in Congressman Boucher's subcommittee--was the
focal point of telecommunications policy last year, H.R. 3636 from
Congressman Markey's telecommunications subcommittee will be the focal
point of interest this year. Both the interests and the understanding of
Congress are considerably more problematic than those of the
administration.
The science committees have generally been a commodious home for
higher education's networking issues, and the telecommunications
committees have historically been the turf of the private sector.
However, surprising bipartisan support exists for doing something to
overhaul the telecommunications regulatory system. Additional
legislation (S. 1086) is before Chairman Inouye's committee, and
legislation for reform of the AT&T consent decree (H.R. 3626) is before
Chairman Brooks's committee.
The States: Regulation of the local exchange carriers and cable
television companies has long been regarded as a state or local issue,
but the Clinton Administration will move to preempt some of the state
authority. Consistent with the investment and competition principles,
the administration favors eliminating the states' prerogative to deny
entry to the marketplace or to regulate the rate of entrants that states
deem lack market power. This may be a mixed blessing: some states have
relatively aggressive regulatory commissions, whereas others seem mostly
to be captive to the prevailing major local exchange carrier.
The Private Sector: Impending action in Congress will clearly
unleash extraordinary competition for the nation's broadband
connectivity--the mere presumption of action already has done so and
there will be much more to follow. Private conversations with major
players have made it evident that much shuffling will take place before
each formerly disparate segment of the telecommunications world finds a
comfort zone of service offerings that will ensure viability into the
twenty-first century. It is also clear that most, if not all, of those
major players are still searching for the killer application that will
guarantee future success. For most such players, not surprisingly, the
"killer app" is expected to represent some form of entertainment.
So where does, or should, higher education stand in this pickling
brine? Several thorny issues should summon strong input from the
education community:
* Ensuring that an entertainment focus does not inhibit the growth
of useful, knowledge-based information services.
* Assisting in a meaningful definition of "universal service" and a
reasonable federal policy for supporting it.
* Assuming a visible public interest advocacy as a counterbalance
to others who will claim to speak for the public interest but who
support narrow, fringe positions.
Will higher education get pickled in this restructuring of the U.S.
and world economies? Absolutely! Let's hope that we can seize the
opportunities that will be present and then find ways to both improve
the quality and contain the costs of both our research and learning
programs.
Robert C. Heterick, Jr., is president of Educom.