WASHINGTON-House telecommunications subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) said he
will introduce legislation this summer to reform the Federal Communications Commission, an effort that could produce
massive structural changes that go far beyond the strategic plan unveiled by FCC Chairman William Kennard at last
week’s hearing.
“We failed to reform an outdated, out-of-touch agency when we overhauled the telecom
law,” said Tauzin, kicking off the first of a series of hearings on FCC reform last Wednesday.
Changes would
be included in an FCC reauthorization bill. Tauzin appears to have initial bipartisan support for FCC reform, especially
from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).
“This commission and the one before it has disregarded the law and
thumbed its nose at Congress,” said Dingell, ranking minority member of the House Commerce Committee and
one of the FCC’s fiercest critics. He characterized the agency as “out of control.”
Indeed, reform appears
driven as much by anger over the FCC’s implementation of the 1996 telecom act as by the wave of technological, legal
and marketplace changes in recent years.
Lawmakers’ frustration with the FCC, in turn, appears fueled in part by
three years of complaints by Baby Bell monopolies, big-time political campaign contributors that have been denied
entry into the long-distance business because of their failure to open local markets to new competitors.
But given
the complexity and controversy of such an undertaking as FCC reform, particularly in advance of a presidential election
year, it is unclear whether Tauzin can get a bill through Congress this year.
While unlikely to oppose FCC reform,
House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-Va.) appears less enthusiastic than Tauzin about embracing
a measure-that if too grandiose-could backfire and create the kind of marketplace uncertainty the current system is
accused of creating.
Kennard’s reform plan, which would go into effect in 2000, would have the FCC focused
primarily on universal service, consumer protection and information enforcement and promotion of pro-competition
goals domestically and worldwide, and spectrum management.
Kennard, backed by ranking Democrat Edward
Markey (D-Mass.), said the telecom act is working as evidenced by enormous growth in wireless and other telecom
businesses, in particular, and the U.S. economy generally.
But, he acknowledged, “Obviously, the FCC needs
to change. We expect the FCC to change. We have to.”
Lawmakers are anxious for change as soon as possible
and will likely be unwilling to wait five years to implement reform.
The only restructuring currently contemplated
by the FCC includes consolidating dispersed enforcement functions into a new Enforcement Bureau. Likewise, various
public information duties will be collapsed into a single Public Information Bureau. Bureau changes, subject to
approval, will become effective in October.
More ambitious structural changes in the future, said Kennard, will be
premised on functional rather than technology lines. Today, even as technologies converge, the FCC maintains distinct
regulations for wireline, wireless, satellite, broadcast and cable TV services.
Thus, it is uncertain how wireless
telecom would be handled under either a GOP-led Congress reform bill or under Kennard’s initiative for restructuring
and streamlining the agency. The FCC head, following consultations with policy makers and key stakeholders, will
submit a final plan to Congress, the administration and others in September.
Congress and wireless carriers have
been highly critical of the FCC’s reluctance to further deregulate the industry and of the extended delays in completing
licensing and rule-making proceedings.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to
pursue FCC reform this year as well.
