FOCUS / THE FCC IN THE ’90 : Regulatory Agency Shows a Tendency for Activism : It may have to act on a revolution in personal communications, including pocket telephones and high-definition TV.
The decade of the 1990s may see a revolution in personal communications that will rival the computer revolution of the 1980s, as those familiar devices--the telephone and the television--undergo sweeping changes.
By the mid-1990s, the trendy consumer is likely to tote a tiny, inexpensive telephone in his pocket as he walks down the street or flies across the country. At home, his television could display a picture as sharp as the finest color photograph. And, if he is irked by the local cable company, he may be able to pay to get his television signals bounced off a satellite or relayed over telephone lines.
The expected rush of change has focused new attention on the Federal Communications Commission, the agency that will help shape these new technologies.
“With personal computers, we could all stand back and let the market evolve. But, with the personal communication revolution, the government has to be involved because you are dealing with the airwaves,” said Thomas Stanley, the FCC’s chief engineer.
Because available broadcast frequencies are scarce, Congress long ago gave the FCC the job of deciding who gets to use them. And, with the spread of cellular transmission, the advent of pocket-sized phones and the potential for new satellite broadcasting, demand for available airwaves matches that for Manhattan real estate, Stanley said.
Recently, the FCC has shown a new activism, in contrast with the Ronald Reagan era, when the word regulation became nearly as taboo as taxes.
George Bush, in his first year as President, appointed a new FCC chairman, Alfred C. Sikes, and filled three of the other four commission seats. Sikes has wasted no time in making his mark.
--In March, Sikes took the first step toward defining “high-definition TV” by announcing that he favors setting aside new channels for the sophisticated signals, rather than trying to upgrade existing channels. The decision has the advantage of allowing consumers to keep their existing television sets while the new system is phased in. In early 1993, the FCC will issue specific technical standards for the new type of television signal, which will be in American households a year or two afterward.
--Last month, the FCC licensed the first large-scale experiments with pocket-sized phones in Orlando, Fla., and Houston. Next week, the commission will undertake a broad study of the emerging field to answer some basic questions: Should a local phone company sell the “poor man’s cellular,” or should the new wireless systems compete with existing phone and cellular companies? Should the FCC set aside special space on the airwaves to encourage the new industry, as the British government did last year?
--Two weeks ago, Sikes spoke at the convention of the National Cable Television Assn. and said the nation will “not tolerate an unregulated monopoly indefinitely.” In late July, the FCC will advise Congress as to what it can do about the cable industry, the target of widespread complaints about poor service and steadily rising rates.
Sikes already has made clear that he favors creating more competition, rather than returning to rate regulation by city officials. One possibility would be to let telephone companies enter the business of delivering broadcast signals. A second possibility is a technology called Sky Cable, in which a broadcast signal is bounced off a satellite to a small dish-shaped antenna at a user’s residence. In February, four companies announced plans to develop such a service and make it available to consumers by 1993.
As a fall-back approach, the FCC could change its regulations and allow local rate regulation again. In 1984, Congress said cable rate regulation should end in any market in which there is “effective competition.” The deregulation-minded FCC of the Reagan Administration decreed in 1985 that such competition exists anywhere residents can receive three over-the-air signals.
“You don’t have to have an advanced degree in economics” to realize the flaw in this approach, said Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.). Virtually every American home can get three broadcast signals but still have only one choice for cable service. Sikes said the FCC is now “reexamining” its 1985 decree.
To many observers of the FCC, these moves by Sikes signal a new willingness to regulate in the public interest.
“There has been a total transformation of that commission,” said Andrew J. Schwartzman, executive director of the Media Access Project. “It’s not as ideological. They’re willing at least to enforce the law.”
No one has accused Sikes, a former radio broadcaster from Missouri, of being a heavy-handed regulator. Instead, he stresses that the FCC must be “friendly to innovation and technology.”
But, sometimes, setting standards “can stimulate competition and move the technology forward,” Sikes said.
