Order Code RL32589
The Federal Communications Commission:
Current Structure and its Role in the
Changing Telecommunications Landscape
Updated December 28, 2006March 15, 2007
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Telecommunications and Internet Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
The Federal Communications Commission: Current
Structure and its Role in the Changing
Telecommunications Landscape
Summary
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent Federal
agency directly responsible to Congress. It was established by the Communications
Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and is charged with regulating interstate and international
communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The mission of the
FCC is to ensure that the American people have available — at reasonable cost and
without discrimination — rapid, efficient, nation- and world-wide communication
services; whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable.
The FCC is funded through the Science, State, Justice, Commerce (House) and
Commerce, Justice, Science (Senate) appropriations process as a single line item.
H.R. 2862 was signed by President Bush on November 22, 2005 (P.L. 109-108). It
includesFor FY2006, the FCC budget was $289.771 million for the salaries and expenses of
the FCC. Of the amounts
provided, $288.771 million is to be derived from offsetting
fee collections, resulting
in a net direct appropriation of $1,000,000.
For FY2007, the House of Representatives has recommended a budget of
million. See P.L. 109108.
The FY2007 budget for the FCC is still under consideration. President Bush
signed the 4th Continuing Resolution (CR) (P.L. 110-5) on February 15, 2007. That
CR provides funding at the FY2006 level through September 30, 2007, or until final
passage of the FY2007 federal budget. For FY2007, the House recommended a
budget of $294.261 million (of that figure, $293.261 million is to be collected through
through regulatory fees, with a direct appropriation of $1.0 million) (see H.Rept. 109-520).
The109520); the Senate Committee on Appropriations has recommended a budget of $301.500
million, all of which is to be collected through regulatory fees (i.e., no direct
appropriation) (see S. Rept.109-280).
For FY2008, the President has proposed a budget of $313.000 million, with a
direct appropriation of $1 million and the remainder to be collected through
regulatory fees.
Although the FCC has restructured over the past few years to better reflect the
industry, it is still required to adhere to the statutory requirements of its governing
legislation, the Communications Act of 1934. The 1934 Act requires the FCC to
regulate the various industry sectors differently. Some policymakers have been
critical of the FCC and the manner in which it regulates various sectors of the
telecommunications industry — telephone, cable television, radio and television
broadcasting, and some aspects of the Internet. These policymakers, including some
in Congress, have long called for varying degrees and types of reform to the FCC.
Most proposals fall into two categories: (1) procedural changes made within the FCC
or through Congressional action that would affect the agency’s operations or (2)
substantive policy changes requiring Congressional action that would affect how the
agency regulates different services and industry sectors.
During the 110th Congress,
policymakers may continue efforts begun in the 109th
Congress to restructure the FCC.
This report will be updated as needed
FCC.
Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FCC Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FCC Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FY2007FY2008 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FY2006FY2007 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FCC Strategic Plan . .FY2006 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Broadband . .FCC Strategic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
CompetitionBroadband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Competition6
Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Media . . .6
Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Public Safety and Homeland SecurityMedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FCC Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Public Safety and Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Proposals for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
FCC Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Potential Procedural Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Proposals for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Adoption/Release of Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sunshine Rules . . . .7
Potential Procedural Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Timeliness . .7
Adoption/Release of Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Enforcement . .7
Sunshine Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Potential Substantive ChangesTimeliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Recent FCC-Related Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Potential Substantive Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Recent FCC-Related Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
List of Tables
Table 1: FCC Appropriations, FY1999-FY2007FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Federal Communications Commission:
Current Structure and its Role in the
Changing Telecommunications Landscape
Background
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent Federal
agency directly responsible to Congress. It was established by the Communications
Act of 1934 (1934 Act or “Communications Act)1 and is charged with regulating
interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and
cable.2 The mission of the FCC is to ensure that the American people have available,
“without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex,
a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service
with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”3
The 1934 Act is divided into titles and sections that describe various powers and
concerns of the Commission:4
!
Title I — FCC administration and powers. The 1934 Act originally
called for a commission consisting of seven members, but that
1
The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §151 et seq., has been amended numerous
times, most significantly in recent years by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). References in this report are to the 1934 Act, as amended, unless
indicated. A compendium of communications-related laws is available from the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce at [http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/
pubs/108-D.pdf]. It includes selected Acts within the jurisdiction of the Committee,
including the Communications Act of 1934, Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Communications Satellite Act of 1962, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organizations Act, Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act,
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, as well as additional
communications statutes and selected provisions from the United States Code. The
compendium was last amended on December 31, 2002.
2
See About the FCC, available online at [http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html].
3
47 U.S.C. §151.
4
When Congress established the FCC in 1934, it merged responsibilities previously
assigned to the Federal Radio Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the
Postmaster General into a single agency, divided into three bureaus, Broadcast, Telegraph,
and Telephone. See Analysis of the Federal Communications Commission, Fritz Messere,
available online at [http://www.oswego.edu/~messere/FCC1.html] and the Museum of
Broadcast Communications Archive at [http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/
federalcommu/federalcommu.htm] for additional information on the history of the FCC.
CRS-2
number was reduced to five in 1983. Commissioners are appointed
by the President and approved by the Senate to serve five-year terms;
the President designates one member to serve as chairman. No more
than three commissioners may come from the political party of the
President. Title I empowers the Commission to create divisions or
bureaus responsible for specific work assigned and to structure itself
as it chooses.
!
Title II — Common carrier regulation, primarily telephone
regulation, including circuit-switched telephone services offered by
cable companies. Common carriers are communication companies
that provide facilities for transmission but do not originate messages,
such as telephone and microwave providers. The 1934 Act limits
FCC regulation to interstate and international common carriers,
although a joint federal-state board coordinates regulation between
the FCC and state regulatory commissions.
!
Title III — Broadcast station requirements. Much existing broadcast
regulation was established prior to 1934 by the Federal Radio
Commission and most provisions of the Radio Act of 1927 were
subsumed into Title III of the 1934 Act. Sections 303-307 define
many of the powers given to the FCC with respect to broadcasting;
other sections define limitations placed upon it. For example, section
326 of Title III prevents the FCC from exercising censorship over
broadcast stations. Also, parts of the U.S. code are linked to the
Communications Act. For example, 18 U.S.C. 464 makes obscene
or indecent language over a broadcast station illegal.
!
Title IV — Procedural and administrative provisions, such as
hearings, joint boards, judicial review of the FCC’s orders, petitions,
and inquiries.
!
Title V — Penal provisions and forfeitures, such as violations of
rules and regulations.
!
Title VI — Cable communications, such as the use of cable channels
and cable ownership restrictions, franchising, and video
programming services provided by telephone companies.
!
Title VII — Miscellaneous provisions and powers, such as war
powers of the President, closed captioning of public service
announcements, and telecommunications development fund.
FCC Structure
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms (except when filling an unexpired term).
The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only
CRS-3
three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can
have a financial interest in any Commission-related business. The current
Commissioners are Kevin Martin (Chairman, term expires November 2011);
Jonathan Adelstein (term expires December 2009); Michael Copps (term expires
December 2010); Deborah Taylor Tate (term expires June 2007); and Robert
McDowell (term expires June 2009).5
The day-to-day functions of the FCC are carried out by six bureaus and 10
offices. The current structure of the FCC was established in 2002 as part of the
agency’s effort to better reflect the industries it regulates. The bureaus process
applications for licenses and other filings, analyze complaints, conduct
investigations, develop and implement regulatory programs, and participate in
hearings, among other things. The offices provide support services. Bureaus and
offices often collaborate when addressing FCC issues.6 The Bureaus hold the
following responsibilities:
!
Wireline Competition Bureau — Administers the FCC’s policies
concerning common carriers — the companies that provide long
distance and local service to consumers and businesses. These
companies provide services such as voice, data, and other
telecommunication transmission services.
!
Enforcement Bureau — Enforces FCC rules, orders, and
authorizations.
!
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau — Handles all FCC domestic
wireless telecommunications programs and policies.7 Wireless
communications services include cellular, paging, personal
communications services, public safety, and other commercial and
private radio services. This bureau also is responsible for
implementing the competitive bidding authority for spectrum
auctions.
!
Media Bureau — Develops, recommends, and administers the policy
and licensing programs relating to electronic media, including cable
television, broadcast television and radio in the United States and its
territories.
!
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau — Addresses all types
of consumer-related matters from answering questions and
5
Additional information about the Commissioners can be found online at
[http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/].
6
FCC Fact Sheet, available online at [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts
/aboutfcc.html].
7
Except those involving satellite communications broadcasting, including licensing,
enforcement, and regulatory functions. These functions are handled by the International
Bureau.
CRS-4
responding to consumer complaints to distributing consumer
education materials.
!
International Bureau — Administers the FCC’s international
telecommunications policies and obligations.
!
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau — Addresses issues
such as public safety communications, alert and warning of U.S.
citizens, continuity of government operations and continuity of
operations planning, and disaster management coordination and
outreach.8
The only FCC office that conducts regulatory proceedings is the Office of
Engineering and Technology, which advises the FCC on engineering matters.
However, the Office of Administrative Law Judges also conducts hearings and issues
initial decisions. Other offices are the Office of Communication Business
Opportunities, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office
of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Managing Director, Office of Media Relations,
Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, and Office of Workplace
Diversity.9
FCC Budget
The FCC is funded through the Science, State, Justice, Commerce (House) and
Commerce, Justice, Science (Senate) appropriations process as a single line item.10
Most of the FCC’s budget is derived from regulatory fees collected by the agency
rather than through a direct appropriation.
FY2007 Budget
On June 29, 2006, the House of Representatives recommended a budget of
$294.261 million; of that figure, $293.261 million is to be collected through
regulatory fees, with a direct appropriation of $1.0 million (see H.Rept. 109-520).
On July 11, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended a budget
of $301.500 million, all of which is to be collected through regulatory fees (i.e., no
direct appropriation) (see S. Rept.109-280).
8
For additional information on this bureau, which was formally established in September
2006, please refer to [http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/].
9
Responsibilities of each of the offices is detailed online at the FCC website at
[http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html].
10
For update-to-date status on the FCC section of the yearly Commerce-Justice-State
Appropriations bill, see [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/ html/apcjs64.html].
CRS-5
FY2006 Budget
H.R. 2862 was signed by President Bush on November 22, 2005 (P.L. 109-108).
It includes $289.771 million for the salaries and expenses of the FCC. Of the
amounts provided, $288.771 million is to be derived from offsetting fee collections,
resulting in a net direct appropriation of $1.0 million.11 The direct appropriation to
the Commission is significantly less than its budget because, pursuant to Title I,
section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC derives most of its funding
through regulatory fees.12
Table 1 lists the total appropriation, direct appropriation, and regulatory fees
offset for FY1999-FY2007.
Table 1: FCC Appropriations, FY1999-FY2007 Table 1 on the following page lists the
total appropriation, direct appropriation, and regulatory fees offset for FY1999FY2008.
FY2008 Budget
For FY2008, the President has proposed a budget of $313.000 million, with a
direct appropriation of $1 million and the remainder to be collected through
regulatory fees. The proposal would impose a cap of $85 million to pay the
administrative costs of spectrum auctions. In addition, it would authorize the FCC
to transfer up to $20.48 million from the universal service fund to monitor and
conduct audits of the fund to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
8
For additional information on this bureau, which was formally established in September
2006, please refer to [http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/].
9
Responsibilities of each of the offices is detailed online at the FCC website at
[http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html].
10
For update-to-date status on the FCC section of the yearly Commerce-Justice-State
Appropriations bill, see [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/ html/apcjs64.html].
CRS-5
Table 1: FCC Appropriations, FY1999-FY2008
($ in millions)
Fiscal
Year
Total
Appropriation
Direct
Appropriation
Regulatory Fees
Offset
Requested
Enacted
Requested
Enacted
Requested
Enacted
Actual
1999
212.9
192.0
40.4
19.5
172.5
172.5
172.5
2000
230.8
209.9
45.1
24.1
185.8
185.8
185.8
2001
237.1
230.0
37.0
29.9
200.1
200.1
200.1
2002
248.5
245.1
29.8
26.3
218.8
218.8
218.8
2003
278.1
271.0
29.9
2.0
248.2
269.0
265.7
2004
280.8
274.0
28.8
1.0
251.9
273.0
285.0
2005
293.0
281.1
20.0
1.0
273.0
280.1
292.9
2006
304.0
289.8
4.8
1.0
299.2
288.8
N/A
2007
327.5
N/A
26.0
N/A
301.5
N/A
N/A
2008
313.0
N/A
1.0
N/A
312.0
N/A
N/A
Note: This table was compiled, in part, from figures provided by the FCC Office of Legislative
Affairs and data from the FCC Budget.
FCC Strategic Plan
In 2003, the FCC adopted a five-year strategic plan promoting six goals relating
to broadband, competition, spectrum, media, homeland security, and FCC
11
See H.Rept. 109-272 (November 7, 2005). See also H.Rept. 109-118 (June 10, 2005) and
S.Rept. 109-88 (June 23, 2005).
12
A full discussion of the status of the FCC budget is available online at
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/apcjs64.html].
CRS-6FY2007 Budget
The FY2007 budget for the FCC is still under consideration. President Bush
signed the 4th Continuing Resolution (CR) (P.L. 110-5) on February 15, 2007. That
CR provides funding at the FY2006 level through September 30, 2007, or until final
passage of the FY2007 federal budget. For FY2007, the House recommended a
budget of $294.261 million (of that figure, $293.261 million is to be collected
through regulatory fees, with a direct appropriation of $1.0 million) (see H.Rept. 109520); the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended a budget of $301.500
million, all of which is to be collected through regulatory fees (i.e., no direct
appropriation) (see S. Rept.109-280).
FY2006 Budget
H.R. 2862 was signed by President Bush on November 22, 2005 (P.L. 109-108).
It includes $289.771 million for the salaries and expenses of the FCC. Of the
amounts provided, $288.771 million is to be derived from offsetting fee collections,
resulting in a net direct appropriation of $1.0 million.11 The direct appropriation to
the Commission is significantly less than its budget because, pursuant to Title I,
11
See H.Rept. 109-272 (November 7, 2005). See also H.Rept. 109-118 (June 10, 2005) and
S.Rept. 109-88 (June 23, 2005).
CRS-6
section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC derives most of its funding
through regulatory fees.12
FCC Strategic Plan
In 2003, the FCC adopted a five-year strategic plan promoting six goals relating
to broadband, competition, spectrum, media, homeland security, and FCC
modernization. In September 2005, the FCC updated this plan with new descriptions
of each goal and incorporating “public safety” into its homeland security goal.13
Broadband
All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband
products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality,
competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers
have sufficient incentive to develop and offer such products and services.14
Competition
Competition in the provision of communications services, both domestically and
overseas, supports the Nation’s economy. The competitive framework for
communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable,
meaningful choice in affordable services.15
Spectrum
Efficient and effective use of non-federal spectrum domestically and
internationally promotes the growth and rapid deployment of innovative and efficient
communications technologies and services.16
Media
The Nation’s media regulations must promote competition and diversity and
facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery.17
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Communications during emergencies and crises must be available for public
safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need.
The Nation’s critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable,
redundant, and rapidly restorable.18
12
A full discussion of the status of the FCC budget is available online at
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/apcjs64.html].
13
The FCC Strategic Plans for FY2003-FY2008 and FY2006-FY2011 are available online
at [http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/]. The Strategic Plans provide a good reference
for the background, mission, and general goals of the FCC. The Strategic Plan also contains
a more detailed breakdown and discussion of each of the objectives that comprise each goal.
14
FCC Strategic Plan, FY2006-FY2011, p. 3
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
CRS-7
CRS-7
Media
The Nation’s media regulations must promote competition and diversity and
facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery.17
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Communications during emergencies and crises must be available for public
safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need.
The Nation’s critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable,
redundant, and rapidly restorable.18
FCC Modernization
The FCC shall strive to be a highly productive, adaptive, and innovative
organization that maximizes the benefit to stakeholders, staff, and management from
effective systems, processes, resources, and organizational culture.
Proposals for Change
Proposals for change at the FCC can be characterized as either “procedural”
changes that focus on the manner in which the agency conducts its business or
“substantial” changes that focus on the manner in which the FCC regulates the
communications industry.
Potential Procedural Changes
Some of procedural changes under consideration would require new legislation
(e.g., Sunshine rules), while others could be achieved through internal FCC action.
Adoption/Release of Orders. The FCC often adopts orders and issues press
releases with a summary of the order weeks or even months prior to releasing the
order itself. For example, the Triennial Review, which dealt with controversial
issues relating to competition in the local telecommunications market, and the 800
MHz order, which dealt with controversial and technically complicated issues related
to interference to public safety communications, were released six months and one
month, respectively, after they were officially adopted by the Commission. Some
congressional policymakers have discussed instituting a “shot clock,” which would
require the FCC to issue the actual order within a set time frame after it adopts the
order and issues a press release.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
CRS-8
Sunshine Rules. Under current “sunshine laws,”19 only two commissioners
may meet outside the construct of an official “open meeting.” While such a
requirement, in theory, promotes open discussion of issues under consideration, in
reality, most Commission business is conducted by circulating drafts of orders for
comment. Further, the open meeting requirement may actually hinder discussion
among the commissioners, especially in cases where the disagreement on the draft
is significant. In such cases, it might be possible for further compromise if a third or
fourth commissioner could be involved in the discussion. While the FCC cannot
institute such changes without Congressional amendment to current sunshine
requirements, it could be useful to study how other agencies, which do not employ
19
The Government in the Sunshine Act, P.L. 94-409, was passed in 1976. It requires that
all federal agencies with units that work independently of each other hold their meetings in
public session. The bill explicitly defined meetings as essentially any gathering. Many
federal agencies, most notably the independent regulatory agencies, including the FCC, are
headed by multiple commissioners. These agencies make most of their decisions through
discussions and voting by the board or commission members. This law was created so that
these meetings would be in the public domain for all to review. Additional information on
this law is available online at [http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1161139].
CRS-8
circulation as much as the FCC, work through contentious issues on their agendas.
Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, has stated that he believes the current sunshine requirements “push
too much power to the staff, and it does not allow more than two commissioners to
be in the same room at one time. . ... it really is the sunshine law gone awry.”20
On May 1, 2006, Senator Stevens introduced the Communications, Consumer’s
Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S. 2686). Section 1001 of the bill
would allow the Commission to conduct a meeting that is not open to the public if
the meeting is attended by all members of the Commission or “at least 1 member of
the political party whose members are in the minority.” This provision, in effect,
would allow meetings between 2 Commissioners as long as they are from different
political partiesAt a February 1, 2007, hearing on the state of the communications industry,
Senator Ted Stevens mentioned that he and Senator Daniel Inouye planned to
introduce a bill that would exempt the FCC from certain provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, which currently prohibits more than two
commissioners from meeting to discuss a pending issue. In the 109th Congress, H.R.
5252, reported out of the committee in June 2006, contained provisions that would
have allowed all members of the commission or at least one member of the political
party whose members are in the minority to meet in private.
Timeliness. Some of the basic work of the FCC affects the every day function
of the telecommunication industry (e.g., license transfers for mergers and sales and
license renewals). Some policymakers have expressed concern that these processes
take too long to complete. Similar to views concerning more complicated regulatory
actions such as rulemaking proceedings, these policymakers believe there should be
a strict time limit on how long these actions may take to complete. Such time limits,
they state, would provide further operational certainty within the industry.
Enforcement. Enforcement of agency rules is currently the responsibility of
the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau. Previously, enforcement responsibilities were held
by a division within each bureau. For example, enforcement of slamming was done
19
The Government in the Sunshine Act, P.L. 94-409, was passed in 1976. It requires that
all federal agencies with units that work independently of each other hold their meetings in
public session. The bill explicitly defined meetings as essentially any gathering. Many
federal agencies, most notably the independent regulatory agencies, including the FCC, are
headed by multiple commissioners. These agencies make most of their decisions through
discussions and voting by the board or commission members. This law was created so that
these meetings would be in the public domain for all to review. Additional information on
this law is available online at [http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1161139].
20
“Stevens to Continue Listening Sessions, But Sees Telecommunications Bill by July,”
Daily Report for Executives, No. 51, March 17, 2005, Page A-1. This article is available
online at [http://ippubs.bna.com/IP/BNA/der.nsf/SearchAllView/
96C56942C092C93B85256FC70014F11F?Open&highlight=FCC,SUNSHINE].
CRS-9
by a division within what was then the Common Carrier Bureau (now called the
Wireline Competition Bureau). Some policymakers have questioned whether the
current “unified” structure is more effective than the previous “diversified” structure
and have suggested studying the issue.
Potential Substantive Changes
While the changes discussed above could be made by the FCC absent
Congressional action, other, more significant changes would likely require the
passage of legislation. In fact, the FCC has restructured over the past few years to
better reflect the telecommunications industry, but it is still required to adhere to the
statutory requirements of its governing legislation, the Communications Act of 1934.
Title I of the 1934 Act gives the FCC the authority to structure itself in the manner
it believes will allow it to best fulfill its responsibilities; however, from a practical
standpoint, the FCC may not be able to restructure to the extent needed to implement
significant changes unless changes are made to the 1934 Act itself.
Some policymakers have been critical of the FCC and the manner in which it
regulates various sectors of the telecommunications industry — telephone, cable
20
“Stevens to Continue Listening Sessions, But Sees Telecommunications Bill by July,”
Daily Report for Executives, No. 51, March 17, 2005, Page A-1. This article is available
online at [http://ippubs.bna.com/IP/BNA/der.nsf/SearchAllView/
96C56942C092C93B85256FC70014F11F?Open&highlight=FCC,SUNSHINE].
CRS-9
television, radio and television broadcasting, and some aspects of the Internet. These
policymakers, including some in Congress, and various interest group and think tank
experts, have long called for varying degrees and types of reform to the FCC. Some
have called for significantly downsizing the agency by eliminating its regulatory
functions and transforming it into an enforcement agency.21 Others have suggested
abolishing the agency and parceling out its functions to other agencies.22 Others still
call for more regulation (e.g., indecency).
For additional information about changes to the regulation of various
telecommunications services, see CRS Report RS22444, Net Neutrality: Background
and Issues, by Angele A. Gilroy, and CRS Report RL33034, Telecommunications
Act: Competition, Innovation, and Reform, by Charles B. Goldfarb.
Recent FCC-Related Congressional Action
During the 109th Congress, there was much discussion regarding the possibility
of updating the Communications Act and a number of hearings23 and “listening
sessions”24 were held. In the Senate, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation eliminated its Subcommittee on Communications with the intention
of considering any legislation to amend the Communications Act in the full
committee. Many of the same issues are likely to resurface in the 110th Congress.
Legislation
One bill was introduced in the 109th Congress that would have directly affected
the structure of the FCC. H.R. 2982, the FCC Reorganization Act, was introduced
by Representative Albert Wynn and would have required the FCC to reorganize its
bureaus to better carry out its regulatory functions. Specifically, the bill would have
required the FCC to create bureaus to address spectrum management, government
On February 1, 2007, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation held a hearing titled, “Assessing the Communications Marketplace:
A View from the FCC.” A number of substantive policy issues were discussed,
21
See, for example, “How to Reform the FCC”, by Randolph J. May, June 21, 2004,
available online at [http://news.com.com/How+to+reform+
the+FCC/2010-1071_3-5236715.html].
22
For example, under such a scenario, the FCC would no longer be responsible for
reviewing and approving mergers between companies; instead, the Department of Justice
would provide anti-trust review. See, e.g., “Why the FCC Should Die,” by Declan
McCullagh, June 7, 2004, available online at [http://news.com.com/2010-10285226979.html ]; and “Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the FCC and Let Common
Law Rule the Telecosm,” 1997, information available online at
[http://www.phuber.com/huber/cl/cl.htm].
23
A complete list of hearings, along with associated testimony, for the Senate Committee
on Science, Commerce, and Transportation is available online at
[http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/index.cfm].
24
For further information on the listening sessions by the Senate Committee on Science,
Commerce, and Transportation, see “Stevens to Continue Listening Sessions, But Sees
Telecommunications Bill by July,” Daily Report for Executives, No. 51, March 17, 2005,
Page A-1. This article is available online at [http://ippubs.bna.com/
IP/BNA/der.nsf/SearchAllView/96C56942C092C93B85256FC70014F11F].
CRS-10
affairs and consumer education, economic regulations, public interest issues,
broadcast content, licensing, enforcement, and international issues. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Energy & Commerce on June 17, 2005, and the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on July 1, 2005. No further
action was taken.
Additionally, on May 1, 2006, Senator Stevens introduced the Communications,
Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S. 2686). Section
1001 of the bill would have allowed the Commission to conduct a meeting that is not
open to the public if the meeting was attended by all members of the Commission or
“at least 1 member of the political party whose members are in the minority.” Three
hearings were held on this bill, but no further action was taken.
Other bills were also introduced that would have affected issues under the
purview of the FCC, including, but not limited to, broadband regulation and
deployment, indecent and violent programming, public interest obligations of
broadcasters, spectrum allocation, and universal service. These issues are not within
the scope of this report.
Hearings
On September 12, 2006, Chairman Kevin Martin testified at his renomination
hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In his testimony, Chairman Martin discussed issues related to increasing broadband
deployment, ensuring public safety and emergency response, serving people with
disabilities, maintaining universal service, and managing the FCC. Committee
members questioned Chairman Martin on media ownership and the increase in the
unauthorized sale of customer data.
On April 26, 2005, Chairman Martin testified before the House Committee on
Appropriations on the FY2006 FCC budget request.25 During the hearing,
Commissioner Martin presented the FCC’s budget request and also answered
questions on Commission plans and action on issues such as broadcast and cable
indecency, the E-Rate, and the provision and availability of emergency services via
VOIP.26
25
This testimony is available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DOC-258333A1.pdf].
26
A complete list of hearings, along with associated testimony, for the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce and its subcommittees is available online at
[http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/action.htm]. A complete list of hearings, along with
associated testimony, for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and its subcommittees is available online at [http://commerce.senate.gov
/hearings/index.cfm].
CRS-11
CRS-10
including the state of broadband deployment; public interest obligations of
broadcasters; merger approvals; localism; the digital divide; airtime for political
candidates; and media violence.
On March 14, 2007, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
with the FCC Commissioners as witnesses. Of note, members asked the
commissioners to defend the often long periods of time the FCC takes to respond to
petitions and consumer complaints. For example, approximately 70,000 complaints
related to the Do Not Call registry and dating back as many as four years, have
remained unanswered, according to one Member. Other issues discussed were the
commission’s video franchising rules, the AT&T-BellSouth merger, and the National
Security Agency’s surveillance program.
Additional Reading
CRS Report RS22444, Net Neutrality: Background and Issues, by Angele A. Gilroy
CRS Report RL33034, Telecommunications Act: Competition, Innovation, and
Reform, by Charles B. Goldfarb
CRS Report RL33542, Broadband Internet Regulation and Access: Background and
crsphpgw
Issues, by Angele A. Gilroy and Lennard G. Kruger.
crsphpgw