The Telecommunications Law Resource Center is the most comprehensive reference and news platform for communications law, covering broadcasting, cable, broadband, telephony and wireless;...
By Lydia Beyoud
April 13 — With significant legislative action stalled in congressional committees due to partisan differences and the growing focus on 2016 presidential bids, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is looking to move forward incrementally with its overhaul of the nation’s communications laws by finding common ground on reauthorizing the agency that carries out those laws—the FCC.
“If you want to look at policy areas that need to be updated in the Communications Act, the place to start is by reforming the agency itself. You can’t have a 21st century regulatory policy without a 21st century regulator,” David Redl, senior counsel to the House Commerce majority, said April 13.
Speaking at the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Las Vegas, senior Republican and Democratic committee staffers said updating the Federal Communications Commission’s processes and transparency practices is an area ripe for momentum.
However, while there may be some consensus gained from work in previous congressional sessions on the broad strokes of transparency and process changes, Democrats are concerned by provisions of a draft FCC reauthorization bill proposed by committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), said Margaret McCarthy, permanent staffer for the committee minority and an adviser to ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
Proposed changes to the Universal Service Fund are of particular concern to committee members from rural states, McCarthy said. Federal USF subsidies help ensure that rural and low-income communities have access to telecommunications services that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive to deploy in such areas.
The FCC has been under scrutiny for management of the program, which is broadly believed to be ridden with fraud and dysfunction.
Upton’s draft FCC Reauthorization Act of 2015 proposes to freeze the agency's current funding at $339.84 million for fiscal years 2016 to 2020 and would cap the USF budget at $9 billion through FY 2017.
The FCC’s practice of forgoing certain statutory mandates in favor of pursuing “other more expedient issues at the commission” has caused deep concern for committee Republicans, said Redl.
He noted that Congress has yet to receive a quadrennial report on media ownership rules for 2010, and that instead the FCC is focused on completing its review for 2014.
House Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) “has been very clear that he wants to see the quadrennial review finished, he wants to see the media ownership rules updated,” said Redl.
Making the FCC “a more predictable place to do business” is a core part of the committee’s transparency push, he said.
The FCC’s action on net neutrality has emerged as one of the major dividing lines between the two parties in their effort to update the Communications Act of 1934. Upon publication of the FCC’s Open Internet order in the Federal Register on April 13, the USTelecom Association immediately announced it was filing suit over the rules for being arbitrary and capricious and a violation of federal law.
Though the committee’s Republicans staunchly opposed the FCC’s decision to reclassify wired and mobile broadband Internet services as common carriers under Title II of the act, the lawsuit shouldn’t change members’ dedication to writing bipartisan legislation that takes core net neutrality principles into account, Redl said.
Different paths could be taken on such legislation in both the House and Senate Commerce committees, Redl said.
“There are areas of broad agreement” for a Communications Act update that shouldn’t be impacted by a split over net neutrality laws, particularly on spectrum issues, he said.
“That’s an area where I think we can focus going forward as a way to keep the ball rolling on ‘Comm Act update’ while we try to figure out some of the more difficult pieces,” Redl said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Lydia Beyoud in Las Vegas at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Heather Rothman at firstname.lastname@example.org
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)