Moderated by Philip Verveer, a partner in Willkie Farr & Gallagher, the infrastructure issues panel was designed to promote a discussion of the tools, initiatives, and processes for defining and achieving the vision put forth in the Agenda for Action. The first panelist, Brother Richard Emenecker, Director of the Department of General Services, City of Pittsburgh, described the information superhighway as one that preserves the unity of the city, yet maintains the diversity of the neighborhoods as an "electronic thread woven throughout the community." Local authorities are "mandated" to oversee cable franchising and renewal, and as cable systems become part of the information superhighway, the need for local municipalities, states, and the federal government to collaborate on telecommunications planning is essential. Brother Emenecker urged that seminars be conducted that educate local officials on telecommunications issues, and that state and local agencies should be "put in the same room" for cooperative discussions.
Thomas Kalil, Director of Science and Technology for the White House's National Economic Council, also emphasized the importance of federal cooperation with state and local governments. At the state and local levels resides a significant amount of the resources and responsibility for infrastructure development. Cooperation is an important means to prevent "balkanization" of the networks. Moreover, the state and local levels represent "laboratories of democracy" in topical areas where many of the right answers are not known. Various approaches have already been undertaken, ranging from using excess profits of the local telephone company for infrastructure expenditures, to "social contracts" between state government and the local "telcos" whereby infrastructure investment is allowed in the rate base in exchange for pricing flexibility.
Mr. Kalil stressed that the Administration views the information superhighway not as an end in itself but, rather, as a powerful means to achieve social goals in such areas as education, health care, economic development, telecommuting, participatory democracy, access to government services, and community public access networks or "freenets." Local and state dissemination of information about their infrastructure applications would benefit both each other and the federal government. The Administration is also interested in matching resources with communities to promote the development of "empowerment zones."
Carol Fukunaga, Hawaii State Senator and Chair of the National Conference on State Legislatures' Communications Committee, stressed the need to involve states in planning and developing an information infrastructure. State governments represent major user communities, particularly to the extent that they are the primary delivery points for education, health care and human services.
Because states have had to find new ways to deliver these services with less resources, they have had to develop innovative approaches: i.e., ranging from building their own networks (Iowa) to partial federal National Science Foundation funding (Texas), and public-private partnerships (California's state government and Pacific Bell).
In Hawaii, the state has established its own computer network, and uses cable programming for extensive distance learning and coverage of legislative hearings. However, even these innovations are a drop in the bucket compared with the costs of rewiring all schools and providing the full range of equipment and technology in Hawaii's public schools. Senator Fukunaga urged that the federal government partner with states to develop an information infrastructure that is cost-effective, able to be deployed rapidly and is less risky.
Sharon Nelson, Chairman of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, stated that effective competition is a decentralized, efficient way of assuring customer satisfaction but that market failure can occur, requiring consumer protection actions by the public sector. In telecommunications, government intervention should be minimal but focused on ensuring affordable, easy, and widely available access. In this global economy, the "competitive edge" goes to an "open network that upholds the users' rights to privacy and free cultural and political expression."
In critiquing the Agenda for Action, Chairman Nelson cautioned against raising expectations too high, citing the long gestation period of the paperless office. She also stated that with competition the government does not need to promote private sector investment (Agenda's first goal). With the convergence of industries such as cable TV and telephony, there is a need to harmonize the regulatory superstructure of each and match that with the infrastructure. Regulatory uncertainty can deter private sector investment--witness the situation in Seattle, where the local government is becoming involved with alternative access service provision. The proposed collaborative effort should be pursued as a means to rethink what the appropriate jurisdictional lines should be, and NTIA should conduct its community (universal service) meetings.
Brian Fontes, Chief of Staff of FCC Chairman James Quello, 5 stated that his agency has a key role to play in the development of the NII. Besides authorizing many services and regulating interstate telecommunications services, the FCC could establish incentives that promote standards development, competition that provides better services at reasonable rates, universal service, and private investment. Conflict resolution within the public sector should be undertaken through existing structures or working groups, and coordination is needed to prevent redundancy.
During the question-and-answer period, a discussion centered on the importance of integrating state networks with others in the public and private sector, and of states enjoying the rights that any other large entity possesses to lease or own networks.