WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission received somewhat of a mixed message last week when consumer advocates, and state and local government representatives appeared at a forum discussing what the FCC should look like in the 21st century.
Mike Travieso, the people’s counsel for the state of Maryland, suggested the FCC be merged with other federal regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, so that consumers voicing concerns about a company regulated by more than one federal regulatory body only have to make one point of contact.
In the future, “you are going to have a holding company with a lot of [various subsidiaries] … It doesn’t make sense to me that we would have to go to the FCC to complain about certain things, to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to complain about certain things, FERC about certain things and state regulatory agencies about certain things … In Maryland, you can go to one place, raise your concerns and get relief … It is going to be a disservice if you have to go to five different places,” said Travieso.
Conversely, many panelists, specifically those representing various disabilities interests, urged the FCC to increase consumer education and enforcement of its rules.
Nearly all of the FCC’s proceedings have an impact on disabilities access, said Karen Peltz Strauss, representing the National Association of the Deaf and the Council of Organizational Representatives on National Issues Concerning People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. “I cannot imagine another federal agency interweaving access” in regulatory issues, she said.
Even the representative of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, James Bradford Ramsay, said the FCC should remain intact. “The FCC has to stay in the business. We are still in the implementation phase … You will be the backstop for enforcement [since] NARUC believes the primary enforcement should be at the state level,” Ramsay commented.
The forum was the second of three public meetings set up to give various parties a chance to give the FCC their vision for the agency’s future.
“We have been engaged in our own dialogue and have engaged in an external dialogue on what and who is the FCC,” said Kathryn Brown, FCC chief of staff.
The makeup of the various fora was subtly criticized by some panelists, who said industry and consumer advocates need to talk to each other. The FCC held a similar forum with industry representatives last month.
“We had a consumer panel and an industry panel, and a number of people said, `What were you thinking?’ We need to be talking to each other,” Brown noted.
After the FCC has developed a strategic-planning document, the agency plans to bring industry representatives and consumer advocates to talk in a public forum.
FCC reform is occurring because of the transition from monopoly businesses to competition. Brown said that many of the participants began their careers during a period of monopoly. “Most of us who have been around for a while have come out of monopoly regulation … there was one company in an area that you got to know and love and hate,” she said.
But now the rules may need to change, Brown said.
Andy Schwartzman, a representative from the Media Access Project, commented, “Competition is a means, not an end. We had competition with two cellular players, but it really did not do a whole lot of good.”
Although Brown chaired the forum, FCC Chairman William Kennard made a brief appearance, during which he aligned himself with the consumer advocates. “We are all on the same team. We are trying to find the public in the public interest,” Kennard said.
