WASHINGTON-She didn’t ask for the job. She didn’t even really know about the job before she got it. But here she is and she is going to do her best at this job, which as she sees it, is protecting the consumer.
She is Gloria Tristani, one of the newest and perhaps least-known members of the Federal Communications Commission.
In a recent RCR interview, Tristani gave strong opinions on such hot wireless issues as strongest signal-she is growing impatient with the industry-and whether wireless is a true competitor to wireline-not today but in the future.
Additionally, Tristani gave some insight into herself by talking about her heritage and background. She was born and raised in Puerto Rico. This interview took place just as the island was recovering from Hurricane Georges.
RCR: In the last year, what has been the biggest surprise to you about the FCC?
Tristani: I had no pre-conceived notions of the FCC. I hardly knew the FCC. I did not seek out this position. I say that because people are startled when they say `You didn’t know what you were getting into?’ I didn’t have a clue. So having said that, the biggest surprise was to find the high-quality staff that permeates this place. I have been in government and I really am surprised with the high quality of the people that are here. That makes my job so much easier.
RCR: Do you think staff turnover is a problem?
Tristani: There is some turnover here, but there are some people who have been here 20, 25, 30 years so there’s a mix of that. Frankly, you have got to expect turnover. This is a hard place … There is a lot of excitement at the FCC. So much is going on here that it attracts a lot of bright, young minds and so I think there will always be a good supply even if there is turnover.
RCR: Do you think wireless service can be a substitute for wireline?
Tristani: In the future it will be. In other countries, it is a substitute for wireline. That is one of the things that amazed me from my one international trip so far. I was in Argentina in April attending a conference of all of the South American regulators. It also involved industry. I was meeting with regulators from that part of the world (it is pretty much the same in other parts of the world,) but I didn’t realize that out of every three new phones in the world, two are wireless. Now there is a reason for that difference. In the United States, we have a wireline infrastructure that is there. We have an incredible network that probably no one else could duplicate because it is too expensive. So you have a lot of developing countries that just cannot duplicate that type of network in their countries so wireless becomes the alternative. Having said all this, I don’t think it’s a true competitor [in the United States] yet because of price.
RCR: In Puerto Rico, wireless is becoming a quicker competitor to wireline, correct?
Tristani: Yes and Puerto Rico still only has about 74 percent penetration for any service, so a lot of people that can’t get wireline will be looking at wireless.
RCR: There has been a controversy over resale that doesn’t seem to want to go away. What are your thoughts?
Tristani: There is a provision that we have in our rules that will expire in November 2002. There are many that say there is no good reason for that rule because there is full-fledged competition. I am not there yet. First of all, this is not a super-onerous rule. It just says that you shall, if you have resale, treat everyone the same as far as not having non-discriminating practices. I see that more as a fair rule of the game rather than onerous regulation, but there are some that would disagree. Because of that rule, we have seen many players being able to enter those markets and serve some niche markets that may have not been served. I don’t have statistics on that but I know that the Spanish-speaking community may have been one of those niche markets that may have benefited from our resale rules. We may not need that rule before it sunsets.
RCR: When the extension of the compliance date for the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 came out, you were the only commissioner to not issue a separate statement. Would you like to say something now?
Tristani: I didn’t think we needed to add anything. We know we need to get this done (the whole CALEA proceeding). We knew there were reasons for the extensions. I think we need to focus on working and not so much on talking about it.
RCR: Along those lines, is there anything particular you are going to be looking for from the commenters as the technical standards process moves forward?
Tristani: No, I am very open-minded right now. Ready to be educated and hear.
RCR: What do you think is the most important wireless issue for the rest of your term?
Tristani: From my perspective-and it is not any different from my general philosophy on wireline or all of the areas we sort of manage-it is making sure the benefits of wireless and all of the wonderful technologies benefit all Americans. I want to be very broad in that sense. I mean Americans with disabilities or Americans living in rural areas, not only Americans living in the continental United States. As you know, I am from Puerto Rico-born and bred there-so I have a special affinity to see that everything reaches my beloved island. From my perspective, I want to ensure that all of those benefits reach all consumers. I am concerned about areas where things are moving slower than perhaps I would like. That is making sure, for example, that E911 calls get through and we are still working through some of those issues, such as strongest signal.
I am getting very impatient. The industry, and rightly so, touts and promotes wireless as a great safety tool and most people … assume that when you have a wireless phone, whichever way, shape or form, it is going to get through in an emergency, and that has not always happened so that is a big issue for me.
I like to talk about when I lived in New Mexico, which wasn’t too long ago. I lived in Albuquerque and worked in Santa Fe. It’s about a 60-minute commute. I got my first cellular phone for safety reasons-not for doing work on the phone, which I ended up doing-but for safety reasons. One time I was commuting with a friend and we had a terrible blowout. It was icy and snowy. Fortunately, we weren’t hurt, but we were able, through the phone, to get in touch with someone and get taken care of within 10 minutes. There have been situations on that road where if it snows too much, they have to close the road, and it is great to have technology that works.
RCR: The private wireless community wants more spectrum and has suggested lease fees, while others want to auction off private wireless spectrum. What is the answer for private wireless?
Tristani: I don’t know, but let me talk more broadly about spectrum management. I would like to commend [FCC] Commissioner [Susan] Ness’ speech on spectrum management given at PCS. She really honed in on something that I think is critically important when you ask me about these things: It is to have a cohesive spectrum management policy. I think the FCC has done a very good job, but they kind of do it piece-by-piece, band-by-band. And you kind of lose sight of the whole picture or haven’t been able-because of the pressing nature of what we do-to focus on the whole picture. Commissioner Ness said we have to look at the whole picture. And the whole picture is not just a national picture. It is a global picture. She also called for a wireless en banc hearing. Apparently, there was one in March of 1996, before my time, and she says it is high time that we had another. I fully endorse that suggestion.
Adding my own comments to hers, I think, at least on the domestic front, we have to be thinking not of the different pieces, but of all of them and how we accommodate all of the uses and all of the good users.
One of the most important uses of the spectrum, and something that I h
ave very much cared about, is for public-safety organizations. That is something that I will always be keeping a special look at-to make sure there is enough spectrum for the public-safety organizations.
RCR: The definition of public safety has been quite controversial in the public-safety community. What are your thoughts?
Tristani: Actually, they make a good case that the provisioning of utilities are public safety. The lines are not that easy. You can’t have this line and say it is not [public safety]. I don’t have an answer as to what I will be saying when that issue comes before us, but years’ back when I was in private practice … the law firm I was with represented the big power company. That is the first time I remember hearing about microwave radio and all of these things, and it was their communications. They were very, very vital to the functioning of the power company. At that time, it was the only power company in town. Power is vital to public safety, or at least to the public interest.
RCR: Do you think private wireless’ needs can be served by commercial subscription services?
Tristani: I am not sure.
RCR: Recently, the House Commerce Committee seemed to overturn the personal communications services C-block elections by imposing new rules. Was that the right thing to do?
Tristani: I would never question Congress. It is Congress’ call. They certainly have the authority and the right to change anything around.
RCR: Do you think it makes getting the C-block out harder?
Tristani: I don’t want to speculate on what it might mean. I know that it was a committee vote and it might not go before the whole House.
RCR: You talked a little bit about spectrum management internationally. Is there something specific that the United States can do to promote third-generation technologies in the whole spectrum management debate?
Tristani: I am not sure and as you know there may be some potential problems because the United States’ view, I am not talking about the FCC but our government. Traditionally, the view has been that we don’t want to choose technologies. We think the market does a better job. The European position is a bit different so I am hoping there can be a reconciliation between those different points of view.
RCR: There has been an internal debate at the FCC on the whole issue of fixed wireless. Where do you come down?
Tristani: I think the statute means what it says. I am always for trying to be flexible if you can but I feel the statute doesn’t give us any wiggle room. When there is no wiggle room, you have to carry on Congress’ intent.
RCR: There has been this big controversy about the backlog at the FCC and at the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Can you talk about that?
Tristani: I think we are exploring every possible way to speed up the process. There were and there are legitimate concerns about the backlog and I would like to see things much further along. But the wireless bureau is really making Herculean efforts at making that backlog much smaller. I have nothing but respect for the way they work. That is not to say they are perfect, but there is a lot going on. On the upside, and you must be aware of our new universal licensing system. We have gone from 40 forms to four. It is going to be tremendously helpful to those who have to file these forms but also for the bureau to get things done in a quicker fashion.
I would like to add something because it is a debate that goes back and forth. There are those who view every regulation as something bad and those who wouldn’t do away with any regulation. I always like to think of myself as very consumer-orientated. I believe that it is incumbent on us as we deregulate that we not forget that the consumer needs to be protected-even in the best of the free market world. I believe that very strongly.
This is a wonderful industry. I think the consumer on the whole has benefited, but we have to be very careful before we say `no rules’ in any industry, not just in the wireless industry. Some might see me as too pro-regulatory in that fashion, but I think that is part of our obligation to promote the business as benefiting all Americans and promoting the public and all of that is in our wonderful Communications Act.
