The FCC at its March 13 agenda meeting will consider a notice of inquiry on the possibility of receiver performance requirements. Last fall, the Commission’s Spectrum Policy Task Force had included receiver performance requirements among its policy recommendations. The agenda item involves the possibility of “incorporating receiver interference immunity performance specifications into its spectrum policy on a broader basis.” The task force last fall had recommended the FCC consider receiver performance requirements, using incentives, regulatory mandates or a combination of the 2, although it said it preferred voluntary performance requirements over mandates. Those could either be handled by industry groups or through incentives to promote the use of advanced receivers, it said. Separately, the FCC will take up a rulemaking and order involving changes in the service rules for the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Instructional TV Fixed Service (ITFS). Last year, MDS and ITFS licensees had submitted proposed regulatory changes to the FCC that they said would do away with a “broadcast style” approach to regulating their spectrum. They sought changes to help expedite the deployment of next- generation systems for wireless broadband. Also at the agenda meeting, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau will outline the FCC’s new Sec. 504 Programs & Activities Accessibility Handbook, which the agency recently adopted in line with its compliance with the Rehabilitation Act. The Commission also will consider a report and order on electronic filing of applications and forms for the Multichannel Video and Cable TV Service and the Cable TV Relay Service.
Cable analysts said FCC’s decision to free Bells from unbundling rules for new high-speed networks (CD Feb 21 p1) appeared to presage same kind of freedom for cable operators building out their cable modem services. “It would be horribly inconsistent to deregulate one and regulate the other,” said Stephen Effros, consultant and former cable association pres.: “I think that the Commission has made it clear that on the new services, they're going to let the marketplace proceed.”
Four of 5 FCC commissioners raised concerns with portion of rulemaking that eliminated line sharing (although only 2 formally dissented), according to review of their statements. However, it was unclear whether those objections would assist companies such as Covad that might file suit challenging decision (CD Feb 21 p1). Only Comr. Martin, who reportedly brokered agreement, expressed support for eliminating line sharing.
FCC’s insistence in its March 2002 ruling that cable modem service isn’t cable service has caused “extensive confusion” among consumers, cable operators and state and local govts., Commission’s Local & State Govt. Advisory Committee (LSGAC) said. It recommended agency clarify that decision didn’t interfere with state and local govt. authority to impose customer service requirements and address anticompetitive actions by cable modem service providers. Decision that cable modem service isn’t subject to Title 6 requirements has “frustrated” state and local govt. efforts to speed broadband deployment because it allows cable operators to question state and local authority to impose preconditions to deployment. Commission should recognize that state and local govts. have inherent police power authority over cable modem service to protect consumers and “unfair and unreasonable business practices,” LSGAC Chmn. Kenneth Fellman said. FCC should take action in pending rulemaking to acknowledge those state and local powers over deployment and marketing of cable modem facilities, he said. Also, state and local regulation is needed to ensure that service is rolled out “fairly” to everyone, he said, and local authorities should be able to address issues such as redlining in rollout and availability of service. Commission should clarify that its order didn’t interfere with state and local authority to require franchises, compensation and universal deployment for cable modem service in return for occupation and use of rights-of-way, Fellman said.
CEA questioned whether FCC, “without further congressional guidance, has jurisdiction to impose mandates on broadcast receivers and home-networked devices,” in comments on agency’s broadcast flag proceeding. However, program producers said broadcast TV gradually would cease to exist without flag because producers wouldn’t make high- quality programming available.
FCC began 2nd periodic review of DTV transition Mon. with rulemaking that asked how agency should develop policies to accelerate clearing of broadcast spectrum. Rulemaking revisits some issues from first review, but also addresses several new issues that parties have said they considered trickier aspects of transition. Those would include how FCC should interpret test developed by Congress to determine whether at least 85% of viewers have access to digital broadcast signals, either over air or through cable or satellite, and how agency should deal with issue of simulcasting.
Op-ed piece by FCC Chmn. Powell in USA Today Wed. on media ownership rules riled consumer groups and others. Consumer Federation of America Research Dir. Mark Cooper said Powell’s comments “reflect the biases that he has built into the notices” of proposed rulemaking on ownership. Center for the Creative Community (CCM) said it was concerned that Powell “already appears to have made up his mind that the FCC’s rules must change.” In article, Powell said that like Dragnet character Joe Friday, he wanted “just the facts, ma'am.” Cooper said only facts Powell wanted would require broadcast ownership rules to be changed and he questioned whether chairman should be editorializing in middle of continuing proceeding. CCM said FCC is accepting written replies until Feb. 3 and would hold public hearing Feb. 27. “The American people must have confidence that the FCC will fairly and impartially act on the basis of ALL the evidence,” said CCM Executive Dir. Jonathan Rintels: “Congress must insist that Chairman Powell maintain an open mind and wait to judge these issues.” Otherwise, people may feel “the fix is in,” he said. Powell wrote that most of country’s TV and radio ownership restrictions were older than Dragnet and, unlike back then, today there was plethora of choices for public to get news and information. “Even in small towns, the number of media outlets -- including cable, satellite, radio, TV stations and newspapers -- has increased more than 250% during the past 40 years. Independent ownership of those outlets is far more diverse, with approximately 139% more independent owners than there were 40 years ago,” Powell wrote. But he said most striking difference from 40 years ago was that public today had access to “a bottomless well of information called the Internet.” On personal note, he said he couldn’t get by without interactive TV guide, remote control and personal video recorder. “There is simply too much programming competing for my attention,” he wrote. However, CCM said Powell ignored many facts, for example, that while there was much on TV, just 5 conglomerates (AOL Time Warner, Viacom, NBC, Disney, and News Corp./Fox) produced and distributed programming seen by majority of viewers on broadcast and cable. CCM said independent production of new TV programming had “practically ceased.” New rules, Powell wrote, must reflect digital world, and courts repeatedly have struck down FCC’s rules because, until now, Commission had failed to acknowledge reality of today’s marketplace. At issue is freedom of speech and press and freedom to acquire and hold property within law, Powell wrote. “Our Founding Fathers understood that government should not have the power to restrict speech without deeply compelling justifications,” he wrote. Philip Meyer, journalism prof. at U. of N.C., Chapel Hill, provided counterpoint to Powell in newspaper. Meyer wrote that during crisis when electric power was shut down in Chapel Hill, residents turned to local radio station for news, but all they got was music because FCC had relaxed ownership rules, leaving most radio stations in hands of few corporate behemoths with no interest in local communities. “We should remember that threats to freedom come not only from government; they can come from big business, too,” Meyer wrote.
FCC’s latest rulemaking on EEO rules has exposed large rift over how part-time positions in broadcasting and cable should be treated. In documents filed at FCC’s comment deadline Thurs., it wasn’t even clear how many people issue affected, since NAB said there was “apparently low prevalence” of part-time jobs in industry, while National Organization for Women (NOW) said part-time positions constituted “a significant portion of the total work force in the broadcast industry.” FCC defines part-time as fewer than 30 hours per week.
NCTA Pres. Robert Sachs outlined cable’s policy agenda for 2003, but plan came with hope that federal regulators wouldn’t be involved or would be involved as little as possible. In reviewing accomplishments of industry in 2002 in Thurs. briefing, Sachs called year something of “paradox” because operators had strong growth in new, advanced services but stock prices declined 50%.
FCC staff members plan to look at new issues such as review of TELRIC pricing, powerline broadband offerings and voice-over-IP (VoIP) this year, they told Commission in special meeting Wed. to look at bureau activities. Much of meeting was devoted to reviews of bureaus’ achievements and look ahead to new projects, often with praise from commissioners for bureau chiefs’ work. “This is further evidence that lawyers can manage,” Comr. Adelstein told Enforcement Bureau Chief David Solomon, who is lawyer.