.

The Federal Communications Commission:
Current Structure and Its Role in the
Changing Telecommunications Landscape

Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
October 27, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32589
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
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. During
the 111th Congress, policymakers may continue efforts begun in the 109th and 110th Congresses to
restructure the FCC.
On July 16, 2009, the House of Representatives approved the FCC’s requested FY2010 budget of
$335,794,000, with a direct appropriation of $1 million and the remainder to be collected through
regulatory fees. On July 9, 2009, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved a budget of
budget $335,794,000, however, with no direct appropriation. The requested budget includes
funding for initiatives to modernize the Commission’s information technology systems and
consolidate key licensing systems to reduce costs and make licensing processes speedier and
more effective; recruit additional staffing; seek additional funding to continue the DTV transition
effort; and acquire additional vehicles and equipment for resolving spectrum interference issues,
particularly interference that affects public safety officials. Beginning in the 110th Congress, the
FCC is funded through the Financial Services (House) and Financial Services and General
Government (Senate) appropriations process as a single line item. 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. 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.


Congressional Research Service

.
The Federal Communications Commission

Contents
Recent FCC-Related Congressional and Other Government Action ............................................. 1
Hearings: 111th Congress....................................................................................................... 1
Government Accountability Office Studies............................................................................ 1
February 2008 Report (Enforcement Program Management) ........................................... 1
September 2007 Report (Equal Access to Rulemaking Information) ................................ 2
FCC Budget ................................................................................................................................ 3
FCC Authorization ................................................................................................................ 3
FY2010 Budget..................................................................................................................... 3
FY2009 Budget..................................................................................................................... 4
FY2008 Budget..................................................................................................................... 4
FY2007 Budget..................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of the FCC .................................................................................................................. 4
FCC Structure ....................................................................................................................... 6
FCC Strategic Plan................................................................................................................ 7
Proposals for Change .................................................................................................................. 8
Potential Procedural Changes ................................................................................................ 8
Adoption/Release of Orders ............................................................................................ 8
Sunshine Rules ............................................................................................................... 9
Timeliness....................................................................................................................... 9
Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 9
Potential Substantive Changes............................................................................................. 10
Additional Reading ................................................................................................................... 10

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

.
The Federal Communications Commission

Recent FCC-Related Congressional and Other
Government Action

The 110th Congress assigned responsibility for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
appropriations process to the Subcommittee on Financial Services within the Committee on
Appropriations, where it remains in the 111th Congress.
Hearings: 111th Congress
On September 17, 2009, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing on the oversight of the FCC. This
was the first oversight hearing since Julius Genachowski became Chairman of the Commission
and all five commissioners testified. The hearing examined the views of the FCC Commissioners
on a wide array of issues, including the progress of the national broadband plan, challenges in
creating a national public safety broadband network, and wireless competition.
On July 15, 2009, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a
confirmation hearing on the nominations of Mignon Clyburn and Meredith Attwell Baker to be
FCC Commissioners. On July 24, 2009, the Senate approved both nominations.
On June 16, 2009, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a
confirmation hearing on the nomination of Julius Genachowski and renomination of Robert
McDowell to be Chairman and Commissioner of the FCC, respectively. On June 25, 2009, the
Senate approved both nominations.
On April 29, 2009, FCC acting Chairman Michael Copps appeared before the House Committee
on Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government to explain the
agency’s budget proposal for FY2010, including a $15 million request to upgrade its information
technology and phone system. Other issues discussed included broadband deployment; spectrum
management, including the D Block; and the digital television transition.
Government Accountability Office Studies
The GAO has conducted two studies since 2007 related to the operation of the FCC.
February 2008 Report (Enforcement Program Management)1
According to the Government Accountability Office’s (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

1 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
1

.
The Federal Communications Commission

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.
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.
September 2007 Report (Equal Access to Rulemaking Information)2
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.3
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

2 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.
3 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
2

.
The Federal Communications Commission

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
Beginning in the 110th Congress, the FCC is funded through the Financial Services (House) and
Financial Services and General Government (Senate) appropriations process as a single line item.
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.4 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.
Appropriations language for FY2008 and FY2009 prohibits the use by the Commission of any
excess collections received in FY2008 or any prior years. The FCC has proposed the same
treatment of excess collections for FY2010. 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.
FCC Authorization
The FCC was last formally authorized in the FCC Authorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-396).
FY2010 Budget
On July 16, 2009, the House of Representatives approved the FCC’s requested FY2010 budget of
$335,794,000, with a direct appropriation of $1 million and the remainder to be collected through
regulatory fees. On July 9, 2009, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved a budget of
budget $335,794,000, however, with no direct appropriation.
The requested budget includes funding for initiatives to modernize the Commission’s information
technology systems and consolidate key licensing systems to reduce costs and make licensing

4 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
3

.
The Federal Communications Commission

processes speedier and more effective; recruit additional staffing; seek additional funding to
continue the DTV transition effort; and acquire additional vehicles and equipment for resolving
spectrum interference issues, particularly interference that affects public safety officials.
FY2009 Budget
On February 23, 2009, Representative David Obey introduced H.R. 1105, the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives and referred to
the Senate, where it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on February 25, 2009. H.R.
1105 would provide the FCC with a FY2009 budget of $341,875,000, with that entire amount
collected through regulatory fees (i.e., no direct appropriation); while the budget is technically $3
million more than the FCC’s original FY2009 request, that additional amount is earmarked to
establish and administer a State Broadband Data and Development grant program.
The Commission originally requested a budget of $338,874,783 for FY2009. The Commission
proposed to receive a direct appropriation of $1,000,000 and to raise the remainder, or
$337,874,783, through regulatory fees; interim funding was included as part of P.L. 110-329,
‘‘The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.’’
FY2008 Budget
The President signed a budget for the FCC of $313 million, with a direct appropriation of $1
million and the remainder to be collected through regulatory fees (P.L. 110-161, H.Rept. 110-197,
S.Rept. 110-128).5
FY2007 Budget
President Bush signed the fourth Continuing Resolution (CR) (P.L. 110-5) on February 15, 2007.
That CR provided funding at the FY2006 level through September 30, 2007. For FY2007, the
House recommended a budget of $294.261 million (of that figure, $293.261 million was to be
collected through regulatory fees, with a direct appropriation of $1.0 million) (see H.Rept. 109-
520); the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended a budget of $301.500 million, all of
which was to be collected through regulatory fees (i.e., no direct appropriation) (see S.Rept. 109-
280).
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)6 and is charged with

5 $21.7 million above FY2007 and the same as the President’s budget request.
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,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

.
The Federal Communications Commission

regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and
cable.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,
Nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges.”8
The 1934 Act is divided into titles and sections that describe various powers and concerns of the
Commission.9
• 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.

(...continued)
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.
8 47 U.S.C. §151.
9 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.
Congressional Research Service
5

.
The Federal Communications Commission

• 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 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
• Michael Copps
• Robert McDowell
• Mignon Clyburn
• Meredith Attwell.
The day-to-day functions of the FCC are carried out by seven 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.10 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.11 Wireless communications services
include cellular, paging, personal communications services, public safety, and

10 FCC Fact Sheet, available at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/aboutfcc.html.
11 Except those involving satellite communications broadcasting, including licensing, enforcement, and regulatory
functions. These functions are handled by the International Bureau.
Congressional Research Service
6

.
The Federal Communications Commission

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 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.12
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.13
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.14 The latest status report on the strategic plan was presented at an
FCC open meeting on January 17, 2008.15 According to the plan:
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.16

12 For additional information on this bureau, which was formally established in September 2006, please refer to
http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/.
13 Responsibilities of each of the offices is detailed online at the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html.
14 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.
15 The presentations for this meeting are available online at http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/presentations/2008/011708/.
16 FCC Strategic Plan, FY2006-FY2011, p. 3
Congressional Research Service
7

.
The Federal Communications Commission

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.17
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.18
Media. The nation’s media regulations must promote competition and diversity
and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery.19
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.20
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

17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8

.
The Federal Communications Commission

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.
Sunshine Rules
Under current “sunshine laws,”21 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 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.22
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”23 was done by a division within what was then the Common Carrier
Bureau (now called the Wireline Competition Bureau). Some policymakers have questioned

21 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.
22 “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.
23 “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

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 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.24 Others have suggested
abolishing the agency and parceling out its functions to other agencies.25 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.
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 Issues, by
Angele A. Gilroy and Lennard G. Kruger.
“Reforming the FCC,” Conference, held by Public Knowledge (see
http://www.publicknowledge.org) and the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado

24 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.
25 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
10

.
The Federal Communications Commission

(see http://www.silicon-flatirons.org), January 5, 2009. Video of event is online at http://fcc-
reform.org/page/conference-agenda.
Author Contact Information

Patricia Moloney Figliola

Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications
Policy
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov, 7-2508




Congressional Research Service
11