New FCC Chairman Sees Telecom Battle an Issue for Congress, States
With new FCC Chairman Michael Powell throttling back his agency’s past activism, the telecommunications battleground is likely to shift to Congress and the states.
In his first news conference since President Bush named him chairman of the Federal Communications Commission last month, Powell spelled out his belief this week that the marketplace, rather than federal bureaucrats, should set the terms of telecommunications competition.
He said those who seek to get the FCC to address moral and political concerns--such as indecency on TV and free air time for political candidates--should take their concerns to Congress.
“Social judgments should be done by people who have direct accountability to the public,” Powell said. Lobbyists often prefer the FCC, he said, “because it’s easier to convince three or five” commissioners than “535 elected officials.”
House Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La.) already has announced a sweeping telecommunications agenda.
He has summoned TV network news executives to a hearing next week that will examine how to avoid a repeat of the faulty vote predictions that plagued the TV networks on the last election night. Tauzin also has proposed speeding the nation’s transition to digital television and allowing the regional Bell companies faster entry into the lucrative long-distance business.
“We have no choice but to do effective oversight,” Tauzin said Thursday. He added that while he does not favor vastly expanding government’s reach or “legislating content” in broadcasting, Congress must address tough political and social questions dealing with telecommunications.
But the most pronounced shift could occur at the state level, where the nation’s public utility commissions are likely to gain rising influence over the long-distance telephone market.
Under the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996, states must certify that local phone markets are competitive before allowing regional Bell phone companies to offer long-distance phone service. The FCC then has 90 days to endorse or contest the claim.
During the Clinton administration, the FCC was skeptical of most applications for long-distance phone service. Because evidence of local phone competition has been scant, it approved applications in just four states.
Now phone company executives see a kinder regulatory environment.
“Chairman Powell’s statement is welcome good news,” said Robert Blau, BellSouth’s chief Washington vice president of federal regulatory affairs. “The activism we’ve seen in the last few years has not made it easier for the industry to bring to market new products and services like high-speed data access or Bell long distance.”
Nor are the regional Bell companies particularly worried about beefed-up state regulation. “Generally speaking, the Bells have greater influence over state regulators” than do long-distance carriers because they have more regular contact with the state officials, said Brian Adamik, president of the Yankee Group, a Boston telecommunications consulting firm.
“If the FCC steps back and lets the states decide [long distance entry], the Baby Bells are going to win hands down,” Adamik said. “I think somebody needs to take accountability for the Telecommunications Act, but nobody seems to want to step in and help protect the public’s interest.”
Consumer and public interest groups also are likely to seek an end run around Powell. They were alarmed by his statements that he didn’t know what the FCC’s “public interest” standard meant and that he wasn’t sure there was a “digital divide” between those with access to computers and those without.
Consumer advocates said Powell’s remarks showed insensitivity to the poor and disenfranchised.
“Under no circumstances are we going to concede this battle just because” Powell doesn’t want to engage, said Jeff Chester, director of the Center for Media Education, a Washington watchdog group. “If necessary, we will take our fight for the public interest to the Hill and to the White House.”