A critique of universal service, e-rate, and the chimera of the public's interest

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 359-369

  Shuler, John A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033475195     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0740-624X(00)86841-0     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. For an excellent discussion of the evolution of the public interest in regulating the telecommunication industry, and its historic roots in the traditions of common carriers and public obligations see Alan Stone, Public Service Liberalism: Telecommunications and Transitions in Public Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991). For another historical perspective with special emphasis on broadening the concepts of universal service beyond "plain old telephone service" (POTS) see: Harmeet Sawhney, "Universal service: Prosaic motives and great ideals," Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38 (Fall 1994): 375-395.
2. For an excellent discussion of the evolution of the public interest in regulating the telecommunication industry, and its historic roots in the traditions of common carriers and public obligations see Alan Stone, Public Service Liberalism: Telecommunications and Transitions in Public Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991). For another historical perspective with special emphasis on broadening the concepts of universal service beyond "plain old telephone service" (POTS) see: Harmeet Sawhney, "Universal service: Prosaic motives and great ideals," Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38 (Fall 1994): 375-395.
3. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd 87 (1966). Members of the Joint Board were selected from representative state, local, and professional associations with specific interests in public education and libraries.
4. Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
5. Federal Communications Commission. Report in Response to Senate Bill 1768 and Conference Report on H.R., 3579. FCC 98-85 (May 8, 1998).
6. For an insightful economic analysis of telephonic universal service's historic development and its implications within the current telecommunication debate, see Milton L. Mueller, Jr. Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection, and Monopoly in the American Telephone System (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997). Mueller, more so than some of the telecommunication companies or the public interest groups, at least understands the complexity and public service opportunities possible competition in new information world order. Mueller's essay in the current volume represents a much more bare-bones argument for free-market forces to assure universal services, but it lacks many the book's nuances and important social and economic contexts.
7. U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Falling through the Net: New Data on the Digital Divide (Washington, D.C., July 1999). Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/.
8. Richard A. Epstein, Principles for a Free Society. Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good (Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1998).
9. The FCC defines universal service as the ". . . support mechanisms to ensure the delivery of affordable telecommunication service to all Americans, including low-income consumers, eligible schools and libraries, and rural health care providers. Specifically, Congress directed the Commission and the states to devise methods to ensure that 'consumers in all areas have access to telecommunications and information services . . . at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas." In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (CC Docket No. 96-45).
10. "About EdLiNC." Available: http.//edlinc.org/edlinc/.
11. In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45 (April 10, 1996). Available: http://edlinc.org/pubs/comments.html.
12. The Next Generation of Universal Service. Discounts for Schools and Libraries. Washington, D.C.: Benton Foundation, December 1996. Available: http://www.benton.org/Library/Nextgen/discounts.html.
13. General Accounting Office, Schools and Libraries Program: Actions, Taken to Improve Operational Procedures Prior to Committing Funds, RCED-99-51 (Washington, D.C., March 1999); General Accounting Office, Schools and Libraries Corporation: Actions Needed to Strengthen Program Integrity Operations before Committing Funds, RCED-98-243 (Washington, D.C., July 1998); General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: FCC Lacked Authority to Create Corporations to Administer Universal Service Programs, RCED/OGC-98-84 (Washington, D.C., March 1998).
14. General Accounting Office, Schools and Libraries Program: Actions, Taken to Improve Operational Procedures Prior to Committing Funds, RCED-99-51 (Washington, D.C., March 1999); General Accounting Office, Schools and Libraries Corporation: Actions Needed to Strengthen Program Integrity Operations before Committing Funds, RCED-98-243 (Washington, D.C., July 1998); General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: FCC Lacked Authority to Create Corporations to Administer Universal Service Programs, RCED/OGC-98-84 (Washington, D.C., March 1998).
15. General Accounting Office, Schools and Libraries Program: Actions, Taken to Improve Operational Procedures Prior to Committing Funds, RCED-99-51 (Washington, D.C., March 1999); General Accounting Office, Schools and Libraries Corporation: Actions Needed to Strengthen Program Integrity Operations before Committing Funds, RCED-98-243 (Washington, D.C., July 1998); General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: FCC Lacked Authority to Create Corporations to Administer Universal Service Programs, RCED/OGC-98-84 (Washington, D.C., March 1998).
16. Universal Service Administrative Company, Federal Universal Service Programs, Fund Size Projections and Contribution Base for the Second Quarter, 1999 (Madison, WI, January 29, 1999).
17. Federal Communications Commission, Monitoring Report, CC Docket No. 98-202 (Washington, D.C., June 1999).
18. The Benton Foundation. The Digital Beat: Education Technology: Beyond the E-Rate, 1 (9) (June 1999). Available: http://www.benton.org/DigitalBeat/db061099.html.
19. Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Twelfth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45, (Washington, D.C., May 28, 1999).
20. The Benton Foundation. The Digital Beat: Education Technology: Beyond the E-Rate, 1 (9) (June 1999). Available: http://www.benton.org/DigitalBeat/db061099.html.
21. For a recent example of this kind of analysis, see Federal Communications Commission. Trends in Telephone Service, (Washington, D.C., February 1999). Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ digitaldivide/; Jorge Reina Schement, Beyond universal service: Characteristics of Americans without telephones, 1980-1993, Communications Policy Working Paper #1 Benton Foundation (Washington, D.C., 1996). Available: http://www.benton.org/Library/Universal/Working1/working1.html.
22. For a recent example of this kind of analysis, see Federal Communications Commission. Trends in Telephone Service, (Washington, D.C., February 1999). Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ digitaldivide/; Jorge Reina Schement, Beyond universal service: Characteristics of Americans without telephones, 1980-1993, Communications Policy Working Paper #1 Benton Foundation (Washington, D.C., 1996). Available: http://www.benton.org/Library/Universal/Working1/working1.html.
23. John Carol Bertot & Charles R. McClure, Moving toward More Effective Public Internet Access. The 1998 National Survey of Public Library Outlet Internet Connectivity (Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1999). Available: http://www.nclis.gov.