WASHINGTON-What began this spring as a congressional effort to restructure the Federal Communications Commission in the post-telecom act era could end up as a major rewrite of wireless policy.
Wireless lobbyists and others see FCC reform as a vehicle to secure the kind of deregulation they failed to get from Congress in the 1996 telecom act or afterward from federal regulators implementing a law designed to foster competition. The industry appears to be cleverly pushing for a policy overhaul under the guise of FCC reform.
Neither industry nor the GOP-led Congress are shy about their intentions.
“We believe that at its core the FCC should shift from a regulatory mode to one where its job is primarily enforcement and encouraging competition,” the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association recommended to Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio). “Competition should be promoted, not just expected-clear away the regulatory underbrush at all levels of government in order to let competition flourish.”
Gillmor was appointed chairman of an FCC reform task force in May by House telecommunications subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.).
“I think what you’re seeing is people are concentrating on policy because structural change is a no-brainer; even Kennard believes they’re antiquated,” said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Tauzin.
“The problem is going to be when we try to rein in FCC-assumed authority,” Johnson said. “We’re going to have a total package ready for introduction this fall from a structural and a policy standpoint.”
Industry lobbyists and Congress seem to sense a power vacuum that they have helped create with months of browbeating and harsh criticism of FCC Chairman William Kennard, a Clinton-appointed Democrat.
Kennard’s proposals for FCC reform are far less ambitious than those offered by industry and expected by congressional Republicans.
The FCC and congressional Democrats did not return calls for comment.
Under the heading, `Streamline FCC Functions,’ CTIA proposed legislation to put the burden on the FCC to justify regulating commercial wireless carriers; to eliminate unnecessary rules following biennial reviews of telecom act regulations; to make universal service fair to wireless carriers by requiring federal and state agencies to impose universal-service contribution requirements only when they have ensured that wireless carriers can draw from universal service funds; to exempt wireless carriers from pending broadband/high speed Internet legislation; to expedite telecom equipment approval by the FCC; to establish fair and equitable regulatory fees; to allow wireless carriers unfettered access and use of customer proprietary network information; and to eliminate the 45-megahertz spectrum cap.
The Personal Communications Industry Association also urged less wireless regulation on many items flagged by CTIA, with the exception of the spectrum cap.
PCIA, which caters more to wireless start-ups as opposed to the entrenched incumbents that drive CTIA policy, opposes the removal of the spectrum cap.
Still, the emphasis of PCIA’s congressional filing-like CTIA’s-was more on policy reform than structural reform.
“It is important to point out … that implementing individual streamlining steps may not be sufficient to prepare the regulatory process for the next century,” said PCIA President Jay Kitchen in a letter to Gillmor.
With consumer groups already critical of the lack of local competition (wireless excluded) and increased telecom consolidation (wireless included) since the enactment of the ’96 telecom law, any bill of Tauzin’s that further deregulates the telecom industry is likely to create more protests and opposition.
If that happens, FCC reform legislation may not get far this year.
