The Federal Communications Commission:
Current Structure and Its Role in the
Changing Telecommunications Landscape
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
September 13, 2011January 12, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32589
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Federal Communications Commission
Summary
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency with its five
members appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. 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.
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. One bill
hasNine
bills have been introduced during the 111th112th Congress that would change the operation of the FCC.
Representative Bart Stupak has introduced H.R. 4167, which would amend the Sunshine Act to
allow more than two FCC commissioners to meet privately to discuss agency business, so long as
a commissioner of each political party is present and the content of the meeting is publicly
disclosed.
Most of the FCC’s budget is derived from regulatory fees collected by the agency rather than
through a direct appropriation. The fees, often referred to as “Section (9) fees,” are collected from
license holders and certain other entities (e.g., cable television systems) and deposited into an
FCC account. The law gives the FCC authority to review the regulatory fees and to adjust the fees
to reflect changes in its appropriation from year to year. It may also add, delete, or reclassify
services under certain circumstances.
For FY2011, FCC requested a budget of $352.5 million with all but $1 million to be collected
through the assessment of regulatory fees. The requested budget includes funding to (1) support
the Commission’s cyber-security role; (2) implement the National Broadband Plan; (3) overhaul
the Commission’s data systems and processes; and (4) modernize and reform the FCC. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $355.5 million for the FCC for FY2011, with
all of it to be collected through regulatory fees.
As budget legislation for FY2011 was not signed into law before the end of FY2010, on
September 30, 2010, President Obama signed P.L. 111-242, a continuing resolution that provided
funding for federal agencies from October 1 to December 3, 2010, generally at FY2010 levels.
President Obama subsequently signed three continuing resolutions that further delayed the
expiration of P.L. 111-242, which is currently set to expire on March 4, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
The Federal Communications Commission
Contents
FCC-Related Congressional Action—112th Congress ..................................................................... 1
Federal Communications Commission Collaboration Act (H.R. 1009).............................. 1
FCC Technical Expertise Capacity Heightening Act (S. 611) and FCC
Commissioners’ Technical Resource Enhancement Act (H.R. 2102) .............................. 1
FCC Analysis of Benefits and Costs Act of 2011 (H.R. 2289) ........................................... 2
FCC-Related Government Accountability Office Studies ............................................................... 2
Enforcement Program Management (February 2008)............................................................... 2
Equal Access to Rulemaking Information (September 2007) ................................................... 3
FCC Budget and Authorization........................................................................................................ 3
FY2012 Budget ......................................................................................................................... 4
FCC Authorization..................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of the FCC....................................................................................................................... 4
FCC Leadership......................................................................................................................... 6
FCC Structure............................................................................................................................ 6
FCC Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 7
Proposals for Change....................................................................................................................... 8
Potential Procedural Changes.................................................................................................... 8
Adoption/Release of Orders ................................................................................................ 8The FY2012 budget is included in P.L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R.
2055), which was signed by President Obama on December 23, 2011. The budget provides
$339,844,000 for agency salaries and expenses with no direct appropriation (all funding will be
obtained through the collection of regulatory fees). This level is $16,790,000 less than the
FY2011 budget.
Congressional Research Service
The Federal Communications Commission
Contents
FCC-Related Congressional Action—112th Congress ..................................................................... 1
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Proposed Rulemaking ....................................................................... 1
FCC Analysis of Benefits and Costs Act of 2011 (H.R. 2289) ........................................... 1
Commission Collaboration........................................................................................................ 1
Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act (H.R. 3309) Federal
Communications Commission Process Reform Act (S. 1784)
Telecommunications Jobs Act (S. 1817) .......................................................................... 1
Federal Communications Commission Collaboration Act (H.R. 1009).............................. 2
Report Consolidation and Paperwork Reduction ...................................................................... 2
Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act (H.R. 3310)
Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act (S. 1780) ............... 2
Enhancing the Technical Expertise of the Commission ............................................................ 2
FCC Technical Expertise Capacity Heightening Act (S. 611) and FCC
Commissioners’ Technical Resource Enhancement Act (H.R. 2102) .............................. 2
FCC-Related Government Accountability Office Studies ............................................................... 3
Enforcement Program Management (February 2008)............................................................... 3
Equal Access to Rulemaking Information (September 2007) ................................................... 4
FCC Budget and Authorization........................................................................................................ 4
FY2012 Budget ......................................................................................................................... 5
FCC Authorization..................................................................................................................... 5
Overview of the FCC....................................................................................................................... 5
FCC Leadership......................................................................................................................... 7
FCC Structure............................................................................................................................ 7
FCC Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 8
Proposals for Change....................................................................................................................... 9
Potential Procedural Changes.................................................................................................... 9
Adoption/Release of Orders ................................................................................................ 9
Sunshine Rules .................................................................................................................... 9
Timeliness ........................................................................................................................... 9 10
Enforcement ........................................................................................................................ 9 10
Potential Substantive Changes................................................................................................. 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 1011
Congressional Research Service
The Federal Communications Commission
FCC-Related Congressional Action—112th Congress1
Four bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress that would affect the manner in which the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conducts its business.
Nine bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress that would affect the manner in which the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conducts its business.
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Proposed Rulemaking
FCC Analysis of Benefits and Costs Act of 2011 (H.R. 2289)
H.R. 2289, also called the “FCC ABCs Act,” was introduced by Representative Robert Latta in
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 22, 2011. The bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology June 22. 2011.
•
H.R. 2289 Summary: This bill would require the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to include in each notice of proposed rule making and in
each final rule issued by the FCC an analysis of the benefits and costs of such
proposed rule or final rule. It would prohibit any appropriations for the express
purpose of carrying out this act.
Commission Collaboration
Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act (H.R. 3309)
Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act (S. 1784)
Telecommunications Jobs Act (S. 1817)
H.R. 3309 was introduced by Representative Greg Walden in the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce on November 2, 2011, and was approved by the Subcommittee on
Communications on November 16, 2011. S. 1784 was introduced by Senator Dean Heller in the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on November 2, 2011.
•
H.R. 3309 and S. 1817 Summary: This bill would require the FCC to (1) survey
the state of the marketplace through a notice of inquiry before initiating every
new rulemaking; (2) identify a market failure, consumer harm, or regulatory
barrier to investment before adopting “economically significant” rules, as well as
demonstrate that the benefits of the regulation outweigh the costs; (3) make the
full text of a rule available to the public for 30 days of comments and 30 days of
reply comments prior to voting on the proposed rule, and issue a final rule within
three years; and (4) set “shot clocks” for orders, decisions, reports, or actions.
S. 1817 was introduced by Senator Dean Heller in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation on November 8, 2011.
•
S. 1817 Summary: This bill is substantially similar to S. 1784.
1
The 110th Congress assigned responsibility for FCC appropriations process to the Subcommittee on Financial Services
within the Committee on Appropriations, where it remained in the 111th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission Collaboration Act (H.R. 1009)
H.R. 1009 was introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo in the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce on March 10, 2011. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Communications
and Technology on March 15, 2011.
•
H.R. 1009 Summary: This bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
allow,
notwithstanding a specified open meeting provision, three or more
commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hold a
meeting that is closed to the public to discuss official business if (1) no agency
action is taken; (2) each person present is an FCC commissioner or employee; (3)
for each political party of which any commissioner is a member, at least one
commissioner who is a member of the respective party is present, and, if any
commissioner has no party affiliation, at least one unaffiliated commissioner is
present; and (4) an attorney from the FCC’s Office of General Counsel is present.
It would require public disclosure of the meeting, attendees, and matters
discussed.
Report Consolidation and Paperwork Reduction
Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act (H.R. 3310)
Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act (S. 1780)
H.R. 3310 was introduced by Representative Steve Scalise in the House Committee on Energy
and Finance on November 2, 2011, and was approved by the Subcommittee on Communications
on November 16, 2011. S. 1780 was introduced by Senator Dean Heller in the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on November 2, 2011.
•
H.R. 3310 and S. 1780 Summary: This bill would amend the Communications
Act of 1934 to consolidate the reporting obligations of the FCC to improve
oversight and reduce reporting burdens.
Enhancing the Technical Expertise of the Commission
FCC Technical Expertise Capacity Heightening Act (S. 611) and
FCC Commissioners’ Technical Resource Enhancement Act (H.R. 2102)
H.R. 2102, also called the “FCC TECH Act,” was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns in
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 2, 2011. The bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on June 3, 2011.
•
H.R. 2102 Summary: This bill would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
permit each commissioner of the FCC to appoint an electrical engineer or
computer scientist to provide technical consultation and to interface with the
Office of Engineering and Technology and other FCC bureaus and technical staff.
It would require such engineer or scientist to hold an undergraduate or graduate
degree in his or her field of expertise.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Federal Communications Commission
S. 611 was introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe in the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on March 17, 2011.
•
S. 611 Summary: This bill is substantially similar to its companion bill, H.R.
2102, but unlike that bill, S. 611 also includes a requirement that the FCC “enter
into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to complete a study
1
The 110th Congress assigned responsibility for FCC appropriations process to the Subcommittee on Financial Services
within the Committee on Appropriations, where it remained in the 111th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Federal Communications Commission
of the technical policy decision making and the technical personnel at the
Commission.”
FCC Analysis of Benefits and Costs Act of 2011 (H.R. 2289)
H.R. 2289, also called the “FCC ABCs Act,” was introduced by Representative Robert Latta in
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 22, 2011. The bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology June 22. 2011.
•
H.R. 2289 Summary: This bill would require the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to include in each notice of proposed rule making and in
each final rule issued by the FCC an analysis of the benefits and costs of such
proposed rule or final rule. It would prohibit any appropriations for the express
purpose of carrying out this act.
of the technical policy decision making and the technical personnel at the
Commission.”
FCC-Related Government Accountability Office
Studies
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted two studies since 2007 related to
the operation of the FCC.
Enforcement Program Management (February 2008)2
According to the GAO analysis of FCC data, between 2003 and 2006, the number of complaints
received by the FCC totaled about 454,000 and grew from almost 86,000 in 2003 to a high of
about 132,000 in 2005. The largest number of complaints related to violations of the do-not-call
list and telemarketing during prohibited hours. The FCC processed about 95% of the complaints
it received. It also opened about 46,000 investigations and closed about 39,000; approximately
9% of these investigations were closed with an enforcement action and about 83% were closed
with no enforcement action. The GAO was unable to determine why these investigations were
closed with no enforcement action because the FCC does not systematically collect these data.
The FCC told GAO that some investigations were closed with no enforcement action because no
violation occurred or the data were insufficient.
The GAO noted that the FCC assesses the impact of its enforcement program by periodically
reviewing certain program outputs, such as the amount of time it takes to close an investigation,
but it lacks management tools to fully measure its outcomes. Specifically, FCC has not set
measurable enforcement goals, developed a well-defined enforcement strategy, or established
performance measures that are linked to the enforcement goals. The GAO stated in its report that
without key management tools, FCC may have difficulty assuring Congress and other
stakeholders that it is meeting its enforcement mission.
2
GAO, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, House of Representatives, “FCC Has Made Some Progress in the Management of Its Enforcement Program
but Faces Limitations, and Additional Actions Are Needed,” February 15, 2008, available at http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d08125.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Federal Communications Commission
The GAO found that limitations in FCC’s current approach for collecting and analyzing
enforcement data constitute the principal challenge the agency faces in providing complete and
accurate information on its enforcement program. These limitations, according to the GAO, make
it difficult to analyze trends; determine program effectiveness; allocate Commission resources; or
accurately track and monitor key aspects of all complaints received, investigations conducted, and
enforcement actions taken.
2
GAO, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, House of Representatives, “FCC Has Made Some Progress in the Management of Its Enforcement Program
but Faces Limitations, and Additional Actions Are Needed,” February 15, 2008, available at http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d08125.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Federal Communications Commission
Equal Access to Rulemaking Information (September 2007)3
In September 2007, GAO released a study, conducted in response to a congressional request, on
the FCC’s rulemaking process. Specifically, the GAO studied four rulemakings as case studies to
determine the extent to which the FCC followed the steps for rulemakings required by law,
including those related to public participation.4
The GAO found that while the FCC generally followed the rulemaking process in the four case
studies and most ex parte filings complied with FCC rules, several stakeholders had access to
nonpublic information. For example, in discussions with some stakeholders that regularly
participate in FCC rulemakings, multiple stakeholders generally knew when the commission
scheduled votes on proposed rules well before FCC notified the public, even though FCC rules
prohibit disclosing this information outside of FCC. Other stakeholders said that they could not
learn when rules were scheduled for a vote until FCC released the public meeting agenda, at
which time FCC rules prohibit stakeholders from lobbying FCC. As a result, stakeholders with
advance information about which rules are scheduled for a vote would know when it would be
most effective to lobby FCC, while stakeholders without this information would not.
The GAO recommended that, to ensure a fair and transparent rulemaking process, the chairman
of the FCC take steps to ensure equal access to information, particularly in regard to the
disclosure of information about proposed rules that are scheduled to be considered by the
commission, by developing and maintaining (1) procedures to ensure that nonpublic information
will not be disclosed and (2) a series of actions that will occur if the information is disclosed,
such as referral to the Inspector General and providing the information to all stakeholders.
FCC Budget and Authorization
Since the 110th Congress, the FCC has been funded through the Financial Services (House) and
Financial Services and General Government (Senate) appropriations process as a single line item.
3
Previously, it was funded through what is now the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations
process, also as a single line item.
Most of the FCC’s budget is derived from regulatory fees collected by the agency rather than
through a direct appropriation.5 The fees, often referred to as “Section (9) fees,” are collected
3
GAO, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, House of Representatives, “FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information,”
September 6, 2007, available online at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071046.pdf.
4
The FCC generally begins the rulemaking process by releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or “NPRM,” and
establishing a docket to gather information submitted by the public or developed within the FCC to support the
proposed rule. Outside parties are permitted to meet with FCC staff, but must file a disclosure in the docket, called an
ex parte filing, that includes any new data or arguments presented at the meeting. Once the FCC staff has analyzed
information in the docket and drafted a final rule, the commissioners vote on whether to adopt it. The FCC chairman
decides which rules the commission will consider and whether to adopt them by vote at a public meeting or by
circulating them to each commissioner for approval. Stakeholders unsatisfied with a rule may file a petition for
reconsideration with the commission or petition for review in federal court.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Federal Communications Commission
Previously, it was funded through what is now the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations
process, also as a single line item.
Most of the FCC’s budget is derived from regulatory fees collected by the agency rather than
through a direct appropriation.5 The fees, often referred to as “Section (9) fees,” are collected
5
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66, 47 U.S.C. §159) requires that the FCC annually
collect fees and retain them for FCC use to offset certain costs incurred by the Commission. The FCC implemented the
regulatory fee collection program by rulemaking on July 18, 1994.
Congressional Research Service
4
The Federal Communications Commission
from license holders and certain other entities (e.g., cable television systems) and deposited into
an FCC account. The law gives the FCC authority to review the regulatory fees and to adjust the
fees to reflect changes in its appropriation from year to year. Most years, appropriations language
prohibits the use by the Commission of any excess collections received in the current fiscal year
or any prior years. These funds remain in the FCC account and are not made available to other
agencies or agency programs nor redirected into the Treasury’s general fund.
FY2012 Budget
The FY2012 budget is included in H.R. 2434, the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2012. The House Appropriations Committee reported the bill on July 7,
2011.6
For FY2012, the House Appropriations Committee approved $319,004,000 for agency salaries
P.L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R.
2055), which was signed by President Obama on December 23, 2011. The budget provides
$339,844,000 for agency salaries and expenses with no direct appropriation (all funding will be
obtained through the collection of
regulatory fees). This level is $16,790,000 less than FY2011 and $39,797,000 less than the
request. Additional details of the budget can be found in CRS Report R41340, Financial Services
and General Government (FSGG): FY2011 Appropriations.the
FY2011 budget.
The budget also included language to (1) extend the suspension of the application of the AntiDeficiency Act to the Universal Service Fund until the end of 2013 and (2) prohibit the FCC from
using any appropriated funds to “modify, amend, or change its rules or regulations for universal
service support payments to implement the February 27, 2004 recommendations of the FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service regarding single connection or primary line restrictions on
universal service support payments.”
FCC Authorization
The FCC was last formally authorized in the FCC Authorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-396).
Overview of the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency with its five
members appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. It was established by
the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act or “Communications Act)76 and is charged with
regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and
5
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66, 47 U.S.C. §159) requires that the FCC annually
collect fees and retain them for FCC use to offset certain costs incurred by the Commission. The FCC implemented the
regulatory fee collection program by rulemaking on July 18, 1994.
6
See H.Rept. 112-136.
7cable.7 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,
6
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. 104-104, 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.
7
See About the FCC, available online at http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html.
Congressional Research Service
45
The Federal Communications Commission
cable.8 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.”98
The 1934 Act is divided into titles and sections that describe various powers and concerns of the
Commission.109
•
Title I—FCC Administration and Powers. The 1934 Act originally called for a
commission consisting of seven members, but that 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.
8
See About the FCC, available online at http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html.
47 U.S.C. §151.
10
•
Title VII—Miscellaneous provisions and powers, such as war powers of the
President, closed captioning of public service announcements, and
telecommunications development fund.
8
47 U.S.C. §151.
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.
9
Congressional Research Service
56
The Federal Communications Commission
•
Title VII—Miscellaneous provisions and powers, such as war powers of the
President, closed captioning of public service announcements, and
telecommunications development fund.
FCC Leadership
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 three commissioners may be members of the
same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related
business. The five commissioners are:
•
Julius Genachowski (confirmed by the Senate on June 29, 2009)
•
Michael Copps (sworn in for a second term on January 3, 2006)
•
Robert McDowell (confirmed by the Senate on June 25, 2009)
•
Mignon Clyburn (confirmed by the Senate on July 24, 2009).
There isare currently one vacancy at the Commission due to the resignation of Meredith Attwell
Baker. Ms. Baker served as a commissioner from July 2009-June 2011two vacancies at the Commission.
FCC Structure
The day-to-day functions of the FCC are carried out by 7 bureaus and 10 offices. The current
basic structure of the FCC was established in 2002 as part of the agency’s effort to better reflect
the industries it regulates. The seventh bureau, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
was established in 2006.
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.1110 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.1211 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.
11
FCC Fact Sheet, available at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/aboutfcc.html.
Except those involving satellite communications broadcasting, including licensing, enforcement, and regulatory
functions. These functions are handled by the International Bureau.
12
Congressional Research Service
6
The Federal Communications Commission
•
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 &and Governmental Affairs Bureau—Addresses all types of consumerrelated matters from answering questions and responding to consumer complaints
to distributing consumer education materials.
10
FCC Fact Sheet, available at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/aboutfcc.html.
Except those involving satellite communications broadcasting, including licensing, enforcement, and regulatory
functions. These functions are handled by the International Bureau.
11
Congressional Research Service
7
The Federal Communications Commission
•
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.1312
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.1413
FCC Strategic Plan
In 2009, the FCC adopted a new five-year strategic plan promoting six goals relating to
broadband, competition, spectrum, media, homeland security, and FCC modernization:
•
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.1514
•
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.1615
•
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.17
13
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
12
For additional information on this bureau, which was formally established in September 2006, please refer to
http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/.
1413
Responsibilities of each of the offices is detailed online at the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html.
1514
FCC Strategic Plan, FY2006-FY2011, p. 3.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Federal Communications Commission
•
Media. The nation’s media regulations must promote competition and diversity
and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery.18
•
Public Safety and Homeland Security. Communications during emergencies
and crises must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency
8
The Federal Communications Commission
personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The nation’s critical communications
infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable.19
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.
18
19
Ibid.
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Federal Communications Commission
Sunshine Rules
Under current “sunshine laws,”2019 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
18
Ibid.
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.
19
Congressional Research Service
9
The Federal Communications Commission
amendment to current sunshine requirements, it could be useful to study how other agencies,
which do not employ circulation as much as the FCC, work through contentious issues on their
agendas. In the past, criticism has been aimed at the sunshine requirements because they could be
seen as pushing too much power to the staff and not allowing more than two commissioners to be
in the same room at one time.2120
The Federal Communications Commission Collaboration Act (H.R. 1009) is intended to allow
more leeway in the manner in which commissioners may meet. H.R. 1009 was introduced by
Representative Anna on March 10, 2011, and referred to the Subcommittee on Communications
and Technology on March 15, 2011. Details of this bill are outlined in a previous section of this
report, “FCC-Related Congressional Action—112th Congress.”
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”22 was done by a division within what was then the Common Carrier
20
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.
21
21 was done 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.
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.
2221
“Slamming” is the illegal practice of changing a consumer’s telephone service, whether local, intralata service, or
interlata service (including state to state, in state and international long distance), without permission. See
http://www.fcc.gov/slamming/ for additional information.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Federal Communications Commission
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.
10
The Federal Communications Commission
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, including net neutrality. 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.2322 Others have suggested abolishing the agency and parceling out its
functions to other agencies.2423 Others still call for more regulation (e.g., indecency).
Author Contact Information
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications
Policy
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov, 7-2508
2322
See, for example, “How to Reform the FCC,” by Randolph J. May, June 21, 2004, available at http://news.com.com/
How+to+reform+the+FCC/2010-1071_3-5236715.html.
2423
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/2010-1028-5226979.html;
and “Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the FCC and Let Common Law Rule the Telecosm,” 1997, information
available at http://www.phuber.com/huber/cl/cl.htm.
Congressional Research Service
1011