Communications Convergence Drives Closer Coordination Among FCC Bureaus

Growing convergence of communications services is pushing FCC bureaus to coordinate more closely, FCC officials said. Speaking at the Broadband Policy Summit Thurs. in Washington, Matthew Brill, aide to FCC Comr. Abernathy, said: “The FCC did a good job in creating Task Forces to cut across the Bureaus and integrate [their] expertise.” The result is a “balanced” approach to rulemakings, he added.

NARUC Gen. Counsel Brad Ramsay criticized the FCC’s structure: “The Wireless Bureau used to fit into the Common Carrier Bureau, which allowed for a coordinated approach.” After the FCC was reorganized, coordination moved to the chairman’s office, he said. “It’s better if the coordination is at the staff level,” he said, adding that would create a “consistent approach to similar issues.” But Brill said new bureaus were necessary as the Commission increased attention to enforcement and consumer issues. A key element of the reorganization was creation of the Enforcement and Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureaus, which “took on a number of responsibilities” from other bureaus, Brill said.

The FCC structure leads to “differentiated treatment of the same services,” Ramsay said: “All litigations are because we have different treatment of similar services.” The Commission should “bring back public hearings” to collect “information that allows for comparisons and market analysis,” Ramsay said: “Functional approach is what the FCC should be doing, and it’s trying to get there.” Brill agreed: “Almost everyone in the policy arena agrees that like services ought to be subject to like regulations. Functional equivalents such as cable modem service, DSL and Internet access should be subject to the same rules. It’s taking quite a long time to get to that point, to harmonize the regulatory treatment of these services, because we are coming from such a different start.”

The Supreme Court decision in the Brand X case, expected by the end of this month, “will have significant implications on the entire industry,” Brill said. An example is a pending FCC proceeding on wireline broadband access. The Commission tentatively concluded several years ago that DSL Internet access should be treated the same as cable modem service, and the end user offering should be treated as an integrated information service rather than a common carrier telecom service. “That proceeding has been on hold [because of the Brand X case] and whatever the Supreme Court decides will have a significant implication on the regulation of wireline broadband as well,” Brill said: “If the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband Internet service as Title I information service is upheld, that would suggest the FCC would have that authority for wireline services as well.”

The FCC’s recent decision adopting a 911 mandate for VoIP providers was “the first step” to “determine what regulatory framework would apply to VoIP services,” Brill said. The order, which should be released this week, “is consistent with what the FCC has been saying for some time, which is VoIP services shouldn’t be subject to traditional telecom or utility-type regulation,” he said. But, he said, “there seems to be an emerging sense that the FCC should extend basic social policy obligations like 911, law enforcement surveillance, universal service and disability obligations to the new platforms. 911 was the first step to build the [social] policy regime. 911 came first because it’s urgent. I am sure that the next step will be to fill in the remaining framework details, what other obligations will apply to VoIP.”