`Universal Service' Is No Longer So Simple New Technology Poses Policy Questions about Americans and Their Telephones
Laurent Belsie, writer of The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor
FOR three generations, the United States supported a simple tenet of technology policy: Everyone ought to be able to afford a home telephone.
This policy, called "universal service," helped build the world's most dynamic telephone infrastructure and enjoys wide support today. But new technology and competition are posing awkward questions.
Does universal service still mean a low-cost home phone? Or is it something more? Should government ensure that all Americans can log onto the Internet (an information highway prototype)? Or is interactive television the new standard?
"We're entering a whole new world of multimedia," says Alex Mandl, executive vice president with AT&T. "Now, all of a sudden, what becomes universal service? It's probably more than just a touch-tone telephone."
At one end of the spectrum, technology optimists are pushing for a sweeping redefinition of the term.
"We decided it was important for the economy and the society that everybody should have access to a telephone," says Susan Hadden, a public policy professor at the University of Texas at Austin. The new model, she argues, should be interactive video communications to the home. This link would give all levels of society face-to-face contact with services ranging from health care to job training to long-distance learning.
The Clinton administration has talked of something similar. Its National Information Infrastructure would bring such interactive service to every public school and library. But Professor Hadden says she would go even further. "It's a lovely goal, but I hope it's not the final goal," she says. "Nobody is going to watch TV if they have to go to the library to watch. It has to come to the home to be effective."
Many policy analysts take a much more conservative approach.
"I'd prefer to see these decisions about what people want to consume made by the consumers themselves," says J. Gregory Sidak, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. "Instead of having an economy car, maybe we're mandating a Lear jet. That can be very wasteful."
Tied into this question of universal service is another problem: Who will pay for it? Old formulas do not work anymore.
Originally, the idea was a quid pro quo. The federal government gave AT&T a monopoly business; in return, AT&T would provide low-cost residential telephone service. …