WASHINGTON-There is a split at the Federal Communications Commission regarding whether the agency should be lobbying for changes in the law that would protect radio-frequency licenses from bankruptcy.
I “do not support the statements made by [FCC Chairman William Kennard] in his testimony before the [Senate] Budget Committee on Feb. 10, 2000,” said FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth in a letter to congressional budgeteers on Feb. 14. “Specifically, I object to the assertion that, `since 1997, the FCC has advocated legislation to clarify that the terms and conditions of FCC spectrum licenses cannot be modified by a bankruptcy court.’ The [FCC] has never voted to adopt any language taking such a position, so there is no official FCC position on this score.
“If there is an informal agreement among a majority of current commissioners that such legislation should be advocated, I am not one of those commissioners. I disagree not only with the threshold assumption that it is the proper role of this agency to act as a lobbyist or any sort of legislative action, but also with the specific notion that the FCC possesses expertise in the area of bankruptcy law,”
Furchtgott-Roth told reporters last week that his letter was in response to a transmittal letter from Kennard that he said urged passage of such legislation. In fact, bankruptcy is not mentioned in Kennard’s Feb. 7 letter, but other areas that Furchtgott-Roth objected to-specifically funding levels-are discussed in the Kennard letter.
Since 1997, when winners of personal communications services C-block licenses began filing for bankruptcy rather than making installment payments to pay their debts, the FCC has urged Congress “to clarify” that the licenses cannot be subject to bankruptcy law.
Furchtgott-Roth does not believe it would be a clarification of either bankruptcy or communications law.
“This is not routine at all to go in and seek clarification of bankruptcy [in fact,] I don’t think that this is a clarification … It is not something that is amending the communications law,” Furchtgott-Roth said responding to a reporter’s question regarding whether what Kennard is seeking is a clarification of the Communications Act rather than Bankruptcy Code.
Notwithstanding Kennard’s continuing desire to have bankruptcy legislation passed, an official request for such legislation was not included in President Clinton’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2001.
During his 90-minute briefing, Furchtgott-Roth returned frequently to the theme that the FCC should not be lobbying for the bankruptcy legislation.
“We don’t go running up and lobbying on this [type of thing]. There are a lot of business lobbyists whose job it is to lobby on these clarifications. I think it puts this agency and its employees in a precarious position,” Furchtgott-Roth said.
He also said that bankrupt PCS operator NextWave Telecom Inc.’s January offer to pay $1 billion into the schools and libraries fund in addition to paying its full $4.7 billion bid amount was possible because of a perception that those types of overtures will gain favorable treatment at the FCC.
“The billion dollars for the schools and libraries fund had nothing to do with the C-block … if they think that offering a billion dollars will influence this agency, I find this to be very disturbing,” Furchtgott-Roth said.
The NextWave offer was similar to the conditions that have been placed on the transfer of licenses as part of the mergers of large telecommunications carriers-most notably SBC Communications Inc. and Ameritech Corp., Furchtgott-Roth said. He has consistently opposed the FCC’s practice of accepting merger commitments before approving the license transfers for large telecom companies while not requiring the same of the other 10,000 license transfers the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau processes each year.
The need for a merger review team is one of the reasons Kennard has requested so much more money and one of the reasons Furchtgott-Roth said he objects to the FCC budget request.
“The problem is this agency is employing staff to [examine issues such as merger reviews] where we have no statutory authority,” Furchtgott-Roth said. [in fact,] I don’t think that this is a clarification … It is not something that is amending the communications law,” Furchtgott-Roth said responding to a reporter’s question regarding whether what Kennard is seeking is a clarification of the Communications Act rather than Bankruptcy Code.
Notwithstanding Kennard’s continuing desire to have bankruptcy legislation passed, an official request for such legislation was not included in President Clinton’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2001.
During his 90-minute briefing, Furchtgott-Roth returned frequently to the theme that the FCC should not be lobbying for the bankruptcy legislation.
“We don’t go running up and lobbying on this [type of thing]. There are a lot of business lobbyists whose job it is to lobby on these clarifications. I think it puts this agency and its employees in a precarious position,” Furchtgott-Roth said.
He also said that bankrupt PCS operator NextWave Telecom Inc.’s January offer to pay $1 billion into the schools and libraries fund in addition to paying its full $4.7 billion bid amount was possible because of a perception that those types of overtures will gain favorable treatment at the FCC.
“The billion dollars for the schools and libraries fund had nothing to do with the C-block … if they think that offering a billion dollars will influence this agency, I find this to be very disturbing,” Furchtgott-Roth said.
The NextWave offer was similar to the conditions that have been placed on the transfer of licenses as part of the mergers of large telecommunications carriers-most notably SBC Communications Inc. and Ameritech Corp., Furchtgott-Roth said. He has consistently opposed the FCC’s practice of accepting merger commitments before approving the license transfers for large telecom companies while not requiring the same of the other 10,000 license transfers the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau processes each year.
The need for a merger review team is one of the reasons Kennard has requested so much more money and one of the reasons Furchtgott-Roth said he objects to the FCC budget request.
“The problem is this agency is employing staff to [examine issues such as merger reviews] where we have no statutory authority,” Furchtgott-Roth said.
