KMB Weekly Commentary

 

KMB Video Journal presents for its Web site patrons a new feature service:  Weekly commentaries selected from TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY REVIEW. 

Published in Washington or nearly 20 years, this weekly newsletter service covers telephone, broadcast, wireless, "Information Economy," and other topics including politics from the perspective of Washington veterans and insiders. The service is available by invitation. Information regarding TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY REVIEW can be obtained by writing TPR Listings, 20th St., Sta., P.O. Box 57.455, Washington, DC 20037.0455 (or electronically: 72154.232@CompuServe.com).

 

Choose from the following:

Week of June 4, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Telephone Companies & Deregulation.

Week of May 28, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Broadband, Politicians, and Making the Sale.

Week of May 7, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Verizon is Right!

Week of April 30, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Blacksburg-Virginia Tech: Doing Something Useful.

Week of April 23, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  "Network Neutrality": Is Legislation Next?

Week of April 16, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Congress vs. FCC: "And, the Winner Is... ."

Week of April 9, 2007
Yet Another Worthy But Hopeless Public Service Memorandum
Re: Communications & "Information Economy" Training in the Schools.

Week of April 2, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  The Cable Industry: A Little Push-Back Needed?

Week of March 12, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Cellphones, Schools, Students & the FCC.

Week of March 5, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Sirius+XM: What's An Appropriate Proffer?

Week of February 19, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Setting Communications Priorities: The FCC's 2008 Budget.

Week of February 12, 2007
Regulatory Reform and Advancement Series Memorandum
Re:  The FCC: Let's Hear It for Oral Arguments.

Week of February 5, 2007
Congressional Assignment Series Memorandum
Re:  Mergers and Conditions: What's the FCC Doing?

Week of January 29, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Cingular Becomes AT&T -- Does That Make Sense?

Week of January 1, 2007
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Cable, Telco & Wireless: Winning the
Network Neutrality War.

 

Week of December 25, 2006
Communications Policymaking Assignment
Series Memorandum
Re:  The FCC, Its Inspector General, and Wireless ETCs.

 

Week of December 11, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  The Pending Legislation: A Three-Part Program.


Week of December 4, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Parental Controls & Programming: How's It Going?

W
eek of November 27, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Needed Business Pushback: The Next Two Years.

 

Week of October 30, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  The FCC, AT&T, BellSouth, Mergers --
And, What to Think.

 

Week of October 23, 2006
Business-Government Assignment Series Memorandum
Re:  Rebuilding the American Telecom Research Base.

 

Week of October 16, 2006
Communications Policymaking
Historical Series Memorandum

Re:  The FCC and Congress - Historically.

 

Week of October 9, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
 Re:  Phone Companies, High-Speed Services, and Youth.

 

Week of October 2, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Policing Communications Company Ownership.

 

Week of September 25, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Emergency Communications: Who's Minding the Till?
 

 

Week of September 11, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  September 11 Communications Changes:
How Are We Doing?

Week of September 4, 2006-2
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  The Lebanon War: The Media Winners.

Week of September 4, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re: Cingular and Its Customers -- Be Really Careful!

Week of August 21, 2006
Communications Policymaking Historical Series Memorandum
Re:  The Old FCC: An "Open Society" Foregone.

Week of August 14, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Brand X: An Added "People's Dividend."

Week of August 7, 2006
Commercial and Market Leadership Assessment Series
Re:  How Well Are Phone Companies Doing?

Week of July 31, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Let's Hear It for Capitalism, Again!

Week of July 24, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  "Network Neutrality": The Continuing Saga.

Week of July 10, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  The Senate & Legislation: Two Good Points.

Week of July 3, 2006
Annals of Legislation Series Memorandum

Re:  "You Can Observe a Lot By Just Watching."

Week of June 26, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Communications Surveillance: Does It Actually Work?

Week of June 19, 2006
Annals of the Modern Legislative Process
Re:  "Network Neutrality" : Give Congress Credit!

Week of June 12, 2006
Special Review Memorandum

Re:  Mobile Phones, Deregulation & Congress.

Week of May 28, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Internet Governance: What About Regulated Self-Regulation?

Week of May 21, 2006
Special Review Memorandum

Re:  Computers, the Internet, and Electricity.

Week of May 14, 2006
Special Review Memorandum

Re:  Communications & Cultivating Its Investor Base.

Week of May 7, 2006
Special Review Memorandum Re:  The Stevens Bill: Assessing the Chances.

Week of April 30, 2006
Communications Policymaking Historical Series Memorandum
Re:  Regulatory Reform and FCC Budget Growth.

Week of April 24, 2006
Communications Policymaking Historical Series Memorandum
Re:  The
Bell System Breakup: The Alternative Scenario.

Week of April 10, 2006
Communications Policymaking Historical Series Memorandum

Re:  The Late Caspar Weinberger & the
Bell System Breakup.

Week of April 3, 2006
Special Review Memorandum

Re:  "Network Neutrality": Bumper-Sticker Politics Triumphant?

Week of March 20, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Seems Like Old Times: The AT&T+BellSouth Consolidation.

Week of March 6, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Setting the 2006 Wireless Legislative Agenda.

Week of February 13, 2006
Upcoming Events & Coming Attractions Memorandum
Re:  The FCC and Recusals: Straightening It All Out.

Week of February 6, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Rewiring America: Whose Side Are You On?

Week of January 23, 2006
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Rewiring
America: Whose Side Are You On?

Week of January 16, 2006
Industrial Policy Guidance Series Memorandum
Re:  The "New Intel": Things To Remember.

Week of January 2, 2006
Special Review Memorandum

Re:  IPTV: Building Access -- An Ongoing Challenge.

Week of December 30,  2005
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  2005: What'll Future Telecom Historians Recall?

Week of December 19,  2005
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Emergency Communications: Don't Worry, It Still Works!

Week of December 12,  2005
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Comcast, Time Warner, Adelphia and A-La-Carte.

Week of November 28, 2005
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Selling Telecom Reform.

Week of November 21, 2005
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  The Elections & Media: "Is That All There Is?"

Week of November 14, 2005
Special Review Memorandum
Re: “It's a Mother and Child Reunion"

Week of November 14, 2005
Special Review Memorandum

Re:  For Dr. Ben Bernanke: Some Telecom Policy Guidance.

Week of October 31, 2005
Special Review Memorandum

Re:  "Your Assignment, If You Choose to Accept It... ."

Week of October 3, 2005
Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Homeland Security and the FCC.

Week of September 19, 2005
Regulatory Policymaking Assessment Memorandum
Re:  TV Channel Re-Purposing:  "Where's the Meat?

Week of September 5, 2005
Special Review Memorandum

Re:  Katrina Coverage: Tempering the Doomsday
One-Ups-Manship.

If you are interested to see additional issue reviews,
contact Mike Beilis.

Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Katrina Coverage: Tempering the Doomsday One-Ups-Manship.

Foreword
Yes, it really was a "calamitous visitation," wasn't it -- to borrow again former House Commerce Committee Chairman Harley O. Staggers's great term.  One of nearly Biblical proportions, as they kept saying on TV.  Reminiscent of those terrible, St. Stephen's Day, South Asia tsunami pictures -- and those tragic reports -- experienced just eight months ago.  Or, something happening periodically in Bangladesh. 

Who'd have ever thought this all could happen in America, so thoroughly pricking the myth of "American exceptionalism."  It wasn't the first hurricane-flooding catastrophe recently.  Remember Hurricane Floyd -- and, that prize-winning AP photo of the small herd of North Carolina hogs clustered on the roof of a barn?  Or, Ivan or Andrew, of course.  But it was pretty bad nevertheless.

"The Firings Will Continue Until Morale Improves… .”
As you might expect, we've now entered the mutual recriminations phase of this national experience.  When Congress reconvenes this week, it'll get more intense.  We doubt most of the American public really wants to see partisan politics brought into this situation.  But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right?  What do you think politicians like to do best?  Beat on one another is a pretty good guess. 

But remember.  Every catastrophe's different, and they all entail some initial "fog of battle" phase.  Not everything that should be done happens yesterday,  Here, too, we didn't have any Rudy Giuliani's taking command and control.  Instead, we had state and local officials in Louisiana who're clearly out of their depth (in marked contrast to Mississippi and Alabama).  That sure didn't help.  For heaven's sake, look at what the New Orleans Police Department did!  What was it, 200 who just resigned?  They seem like the antithesis to the NYPD, don't they? Reminiscent of John Mitchell's famous phrase -- "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."  Away.

According to NPR's "Weekend Edition," however, most of the serious problems in New Orleans just weren't seen in Biloxi, Gulfport, Hattiesburg, or other cities hit by Katrina.  No one in Gulfport shot at rescue helicopters, nobody was raped in a Biloxi shelter, Mobile wasn't turned into a giant trash pile.  We're not sure why New Orleans degenerated so quickly.  But evidently it didn't happen elsewhere (which sort-of puts the lie to claims that race was a factor, doesn't it?)

So should we abandon all hope now?  Start taking names for future punishment.  Set up block committees to root out the guilty and unworthy?  Believe everything we saw on CNN or Fox News?  Incidentally, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour had a great response, when one reporter asked him to comment on the shortcomings of Federal and state emergency responders.  "Is this an argument or an interview?" 

Well, what are some positive aspects of this otherwise terrible situation.  Isn't there something we can think and bear in mind to generate those "positive energy," positive thoughts, as Deepak Chopra, Oprah, or even Franklin Graham would urge?

Print & Electronic Media: Doing a Good Job
Well, to begin with, it's just amazing the breadth, depth, and quality of the coverage by the print and electronic media, isn't it?  Cable and broadcast networks covered Hurricane Katrina's course meticulously, provided the world real-time reports as the Gulf coast was being hammered, and have continued to keep everyone informed ever since.  And, all this detailed coverage has been pretty much without direct charge or cost, hasn't it?  CNN hasn't sent us any bills, at least not yet.

The electronic media did precisely what they're supposed to:  They warned and informed the American public.  You know, following the September 11th attacks, then after that giant northeastern power blackout, people were polled.  They inevitably replied that in the event of an emergency, the first place they turned was "TV."  (We're not sure those polled differentiated much between cable and broadcast news sources, incidentally.  To them, it's all TV.) 

Well, this time TV did its job.  Newspapers did a good job, too, though, didn't they?  The photo-journalism was great.  Impressive.   We particularly liked the fact that even highly partisan U.S. newspapers didn't spend a lot of time trafficking in recriminations.  After all, it's not going to do those poor people in Biloxi, Mississippi or St. Tammany's Parish, Louisiana, a lot of good to say Haley Barbour led the opposition to the Kyodo Protocol -- and, as a result, unleashed this latest "global warming" horror.  That can be left to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and German "Greens" politicians, can't it? 

But it does seem to us the U.S. media did a capital job this time -- much as they did with all five Florida hurricanes last year.  That ought to be noted.  

Telephone, Cellphone & Satellite
The telephone, cellular, and satellite companies and networks did yeoman's duty, too, didn't they?  BellSouth, Cingular, Verizon, and Sprint said they'd learned from last year's multiple hurricane experience.  There's probably no way completely to harden communications plant against 140 mph wind and massive flooding.  Thus, there were serious problems to begin with.  Most networks were up and running both throughout and after the storm, however. 

Thereafter, cellular companies brought in mobile base stations, and encouraged people to send text messages (which are more network efficient).  Relatedly, according to today's papers the region was literally invaded by utility repair crews from all over the nation.  Quick. 

Satellite carriers really deserve praise, don't they?  CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC made extraordinary use of their camera phones.  They're an amazing development, aren't they?  Incidentally, we checked and Globalstar's lowest cost service is just $50 a month and, for that, you get 50 minutes (additional minutes are 99 cents apiece).  The handset's in the $700 range.  But for heaven's sake!  The cost is low enough that you'd think more public safety and local government organizations would have them, wouldn't you?

Give Credit to the Geeks, Too
The important role of the Internet in all this ought to be noted as well.  According to Information Week, a number of pertinent web sites -- the Weather Channel's and the National Weather Service -- were swamped last Sunday and Monday.  But they coped.  Pictures and information were relayed worldwide.

There hasn't been all that much written, yet, on how the Internet was used for families and friends to contact one another, or to help handle the logistics of the massive relief effort that's underway.  But we're sure this "Information Economy" resource made a critical difference -- and, all without Government guidance, support, or direction.  Imagine that!

This Isn't Like Guatemala, You Know
All the people living in this devastated area ought to be happy they live in the U.S. of A., too, wouldn't you think?  Imagine what any sort of serious emergency in another country implicates.  It's probably like the District of Columbia, where the official slogan remains, "Welcome to the Nation's Capital -- You're On Your Own!" 

Some 3 million people were directly affected by Hurricane Katrina.  Not more than 50,000 in just part of New Orleans were the focus of intense media attention.  True, the Bush Administration dropped the ball.  Among other things, they didn't encourage -- or, facilitate  -- media coverage of venues where emergency relief measures were going well.  That created the unfortunate perception that the New Orleans "Super Dome" challenges were pervasive, widespread.  The situation wasn't helped when CNN and NBC management failed to curb the seriously partisan proclivities of some of their on-air talent.

But remember, please.  There are about 300 million people living and working in America.  The payroll totals 142 million, according to CNBC's Larry Kudlow, guest-hosting for Bob Brinker on "Money Talk," yesterday.  The U.S. economy's overwhelmingly the largest, most robust in the world.  All the statistics show that.  There are tens of thousands of talented, dedicated people on state, local, and Federal payrolls -- all looking for some way to help these folks. 

At present, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are the focus of the full weight, power, and majesty of the U.S. Government, committed to making things lots better.  Corporate America has made a big-time commitment to help.  The President's said everything which can be done will be -- and, the bipartisan Congressional leadership has agreed.  And, that's all pretty good, isn't it?

You know, if there's one of those giant mudslides in Brazil, say, or some deadly affliction arises in Zimbabwe, who in the world do you turn to?  Can you imagine facing a crisis in, say, Indonesia?  Remember how those people were utterly incapable of dealing with the tsunami, and depended on outsiders for nearly everything?  Here, however, no matter who you are, some Government agency is really going to make an effort to help you, isn't it?  Shouldn't that be reassuring?

It's Not Beyond Hope
It's also not like New Orleans is the only city in the world that's challenged by the environment, is it?  Try the northern and western part of the Netherlands, where people have been living behind pumps and dikes for what?  About 500 years?  Periodically, brutal North Sea storms breach the dikes, but the Dutch manage to cope.  And, if those folks dedicated to rampant narcotics usage, euthanasia, and other societally debilitating practices can cope with the North Sea, shouldn't we be able to do something here?  Yes, Mr. Speaker, life in areas below sea level is actually possible.  Indeed, it can prosper, as Amsterdam et al. amply attest.

As seen on PBS's "Nova," moreover, Venice has been sinking for several hundred years, as the aquifer it's built on is emptied by manufacturing facilities nearby.  But the Berlusconi Government's come up with a solution -- it's these huge steel dams which rise up when flooding threatens.  The technology, not unexpectedly, was borrowed from the Dutch.

We're not sure it's the entire answer.  But Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu says preserving the wetlands and marshlands and bayous and coast in southern Louisiana matters.  Among other things, she explained on Fox News Channel, it'd create something of a buffer, something of a giant sponge.  The Senator talked of a $14 billion project -- spread over several years.  Oh, for heaven's sake!  You mean to tell us that with a better than $2 trillion Federal budget, nobody in Washington has managed to find $14 billion?  Believe that?

Conclusion
One good thing about this regional calamity is it temporarily put the kibosh on all the mutual recrimination -- and assorted, poisonous writing and palaver -- surrounding the Iraq War and the Roberts nomination.  Now, instead of lobbing political brickbats at one another, the country might even coöperate to rebuild a region and help millions of our fellow Americans.  Imagine!  Pulling together, remembering that we're all in the same boat!  Where will it all end?

It's not like other countries haven't experienced challenges quite as dire as this, either.  Have you ever read the infrastructure assessments of German and Japan after the Second World War, for instance, or thought how the Leningrad/St. Petersburg city government coped? 

Well, the United States certainly has the capability, the moxie to deal with these problems too, wouldn't you think?  So, in between spates of hand-wringing and doomsday-one-ups-manship, try to be a bit more optimistic.  There are tens of thousands of people who actually know what they're doing "working this issue."  Don't abandon all hope, not quite yet.

 


Special Review Memorandum
Re:  VOIP, E-911, and Regulatory Firmness.

Foreword
Will the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) break with its sometimes tradition -- and take a firm position against waiving any emergency communications requirements (E-911 service) imposed on voice-over-Internet protocol (VOIP) companies just last spring?  The agency certainly should, shouldn't it?

The Requirements, Briefly
Last May 19, some readers'll surely recall, the FCC finally got around to telling VOIP companies that they had to provide the same sort of emergency communications services to their customers that regular phone companies have for years. 

The FCC acted after some horrific situations arose and were publicized.  In Houston, for example, a teenager was unable to dial "911" and reach the police after thugs broke into her home and started beating her parents downstairs.  It seems her father had just signed up with one of the VOIP companies.  Nobody in the family knew that when you dialed "911," you were lucky to get anyone (in some cases, you were sent to a police department main number, in others you got a prerecorded message). 

Now, Federal and state regulators have known for at least a year that many VOIP services didn't deliver standard emergency communications, but they'd been trying to gum or swallow this particular policy bullet.  Who wants to burden new entrants, right?  Then, however, the House Telecommunications & Internet Subcommittee declined to go along with the FCC's program.  The FCC had to act.

Thus, 30 days after the FCC's text in docket 05-116 was published in the Federal Register, all U.S. VOIP companies had to notify their customers that there were E-911 shortcomings -- if they hadn't been fixed by then.  That was in July. There was a staff-granted extension to August. And, by November 28, all these companies are supposed to be in-compliance  -- unless they obtain regulatory (or judicial) stays and/or waivers, which some already are seeking. 

Two Basic Points
Well, when the FCC and its staff come back from summer vacation, some of their in-boxes will probably be filled with VOIP waiver, "clarification," and similar requests.  Those filings will be supplemented by those ever-popular "ex parte" meetings -- where senior company officials, accompanied by high-cost
Washington counsel, explain to the FCC and its staff what they want and need. 

Be prepared, public servants, to hear how it's impossible to meet the E-911 deadline.  Or, that VOIP companies will go out of business altogether.  Or, that small businesses customers will be devastated.  Like Margaret O'Brien in Meet Me in St. Louis, threatening to hold one's breath 'til you turn blue often works with the Government.

Ourselves, however, we'd just remind FCC Commissioners and staff of two pretty basic points -- things which your Review's Telephone Bureau's been harping on for years.

One of Two Basic Safety Features
First, as Congressman Cliff Stearns (and others) have noted, in most people's homes today there are just two basic safety devices:  A smoke detector and a telephone.  We need to make sure that remains the case.  We can't go in the wrong direction, by eliminating the telephone safety system everyone's now got, right?

We also need to remember the "baby sitter situation" which South Carolina PSC Chairman Mignon Clyburn has raised.  It's no good to notify just the customer of VOIP shortcomings.  What about the baby sitter who has an emergency -- and, doesn't know that the home's phones don't "work"! [1]  

Second, we wouldn't accept claims of financial or technical impossibility in other contexts, so why do so here?  Do you think, for instance, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would waive seat belt, vehicle lighting, air bag, or other safety requirements to allow, say, a Chinese car company to get a toe-hold in the U.S. motor vehicle market?  Do you think the Food & Drug Administration would waive testing and other safeguards to help fledgling pharmaceutical makers? 

All sorts of companies here and abroad have to meet basic safety requirements.  It's one of the familiar costs of entering and competing in various lines of commerce.  The FCC probably should have required Vonage and other VOIP companies to satisfy all E-911 requirements from the outset.  But at this stage in the game, regulators -- and, the courts  -- certainly have no sound public policy basis for excusing companies from this basic safety obligation.  If they do, won't they be complicit in any problems which arise?  More Houston cases, for example?

Conclusion
If VOIP companies can't or won't meet the FCC's deadline and people have to pay 5 cents a minute for calls with AT&T, rather than 2 cents with Vonage -- well, that's just the way it'll have to be.  The new VOIP services at issue here are valued by some consumers, they contribute competition, and all that.  But basic public safety requirements are more important.  The FCC last May did the right thing.  They need to stick to that.

If the FCC's steadfast refusal to waive basic safety requirements lessens new entry into the telephone market, that's too bad.  But this isn't some computer industry Beta test.  Consumers have a well-justified assumption that dialing "911" will actually work.  The FCC needs to make sure that's always the case.

 

     [1]   In 1990, a similar issue arose in respect of hearing aid-compatible telephones.  The FCC earlier had required such handsets, but to avoid obsoleting too many too fast, had allowed companies with lots of phones to just have a few that were compatible -- at least for the time being.  What persuaded the FCC to scrap this approach was the possibility that a hearing-impaired woman in an office, for instance, would have to scout around to find a phone that "worked," if she were attacked, or had an emergency.  The agency thought that clearly an unreasonable situation, and thus ordered all handsets forthwith to be compliant. 

 


Special Review Memorandum
Re:  NASA and Government Frequencies: Let's Hear It for the IRAC!

Foreword
"If You Can Read This, Thank a Teacher."  "If You've Got It, a Truck Brought It!"  Familiar with these and other bumper stickers?  Well, what about this one:  "Helping Americans Communicate For More Than 80 Years -- Your Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee" (IRAC)?  Feel a bit like that priest in Amadeus -- it seems vaguely familiar, but you just can't figure out exactly how or why?

It's All Right If You Don't Know
Well, it's certainly OK if you don't remember, can't recall that there's a multi-agency committee in Washington which, since 1922, has been trying to make sure all the various wireless communications systems the Government needs actually work.
[1]   Lots of people in Washington don't know, either.  And, they're paid to.

But there really is just such a body -- it was set-up by then-Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover in 1922 -- and the committee members, not to mention thousands of radio communications support personnel throughout the Government, deserve some recognition every once and a while, don't they? [2]

This past week, for instance, Americans -- indeed, the whole world -- watched the space shuttle Discovery crew hold TV news conferences, conduct outside repairs, and even conduct important scientific experiments thousands of miles above Earth.  But for the radio frequency managers at NASA -- working with IRAC at the U.S. Department of Commerce -- none of this would be happening, however. 

The same's true of (a) those National Weather Service video maps of incipient hurricanes, for example, or (b) the many National Park Service and Forest Service fire fighters successfully battling fires in the west, and depending on their radio communications, or (c) the FBI endeavoring to sleuth-out and combat terrorism and also depending on communications.  But for radio frequencies obtained and secured through IRAC and its authorization processes, none of this would be happening either.

Not "Dead Weight Loss"
In the 1990s, considerable effort was devoted to raiding the IRAC's radio frequency "cookie jar."  The Clinton Administration and others evidently thought that spectrum was being warehoused by Government and, auctioned-off, it'd be much more efficiently employed.  Language was regularly inserted into annual spending measures requiring the Executive branch to transfer large blocks of frequencies to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for auctioning.  The assumption seems to have been, again, that private enterprise automatically is more efficient and productive than Federal agencies.

But what fraction of the Gross Domestic Product is Federal activity these days?  Twenty-two percent is sometimes cited but that's probably low, and doesn't reflect quasi-nongovernment organizations such as Amtrak, the U.S. Postal Service, or the various power administrations.  Our assumption is that the correct number is closer to 30 percent.  And, while there's undoubtedly waste, fraud, and abuse there -- just as there's waste, fraud, and abuse in every private enterprise we're aware of -- the services Federal agencies are providing are critical.

Keeping the Baltimore harbor navigable, dredged -- that has value.  Maintaining a nationwide National Parks system, keeping superhighways and bridges open, and running the air traffic control system.  These matter, too.  Helping law enforcement enforce the laws, supporting the national defense and security establishment which endeavors to keep us all safe.  That matters, too.

Just As Critical to Public Services
The Federal Government these days relies on the radio frequency spectrum and communications to provide its public services -- just as the private sector depends on this resource and communications to provide private sector jobs and products.  Just as the private sector has endeavored to leverage the efficiencies inherent in communications to boost productivity and profitability, the Government's tried to harness this technology to provide more services with fewer civil servants -- and, in many cases, to provide lots better services.

Thus, the simplistic notion that radio spectrum resources in the hands of the private sector will somehow be used more efficiently, or will better serve the public, is just foolishness.  The reality is that Government relies on these resources to deliver a lot of goods and services the public wants -- and, which help the American public.  And, the Government's just as efficient as anyone else.  Or, to put it another way:  If you think the private sector's always more efficient, you don't know a lot about the private sector.

Cornerstone of the National Defense
It's important to realize, too, that computers and communications and their combination are the cornerstone of the American national defense system today -- and, the military forces which currently are responsible for the security of most of the world.

Since the 1950s, American defense strategy has assumed that if we cannot out-build or out-man potential adversaries, we can at least out-smart them.  And, the result's been a stream of incredibly sophisticated -- and, incredibly communications-dependent -- weapons systems.

Not only are today's weapons systems communications-dependent, that's also obviously the case of the "national command structure."  Radio spectrum-using systems are how the Defense Department mobilizes, directs, and sustains efforts. "President to foxhole," and all that.  Our systems are lots better than any actual or potential adversaries, and that's how the Pentagon keeps this country safe. 

Thus, given a choice between more cellphone chatter, more WiFi "hot spots," or more BlackBerrys -- versus communications systems capable of spotting and tracking suit-case nukes before some crazy Arab terrorist sneaks into Manhattan, which would you have?  Fortunately, the "peace forces" former Presidents have talked about have the radio spectrum support they need today -- and, that's true because of the IRAC.

Conclusion
The IRAC and the Federal Government's own radio frequency management team, like the late Rodney Dangerfield, may not always get enough respect.  But these are important public service endeavors, and they were showcased this past week through the shuttle and all those space television pictures. 

To borrow Senator Stevens's term, in conclusion, there's more to spectrum management than some "giant regulatory cash register."  That management -- and, the services it facilitates -- are an important part of the national civilian and defense infrastructure, and ought to be respected (and treated) accordingly.

     [1]   See generally Statement of Peter F. Guerrero, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office [now U.S. Governmental Accountability Office], before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, June 11, 2002, "History & Current Issues Related to Radio Spectrum Management" at >>www.gao.gov/new items/d02814t.pdf<<.

     [2]   See generally Wiley & Misener, Whither Goest NTIA?  The Fate of a Federal Telecommunications Agency, Federal Communications Law Journal, vol. 48, no. 2 (1995-96) at >>www.law.indiana.edu/­fclj/pubs/v48no2.html<<.

 


Special Review Memorandum
Re:  Spitzer vs. FCC: The "Sheriff of Wall Street" Strikes Again.

Foreword
"After 90 million Americans lost $7 trillion," CBS News's "Sixty Minutes" commendably noted on May 26, 2003, "Spitzer deputized himself the 'Sheriff of Wall Street' and began a crusade for retribution, restitution, and reform." 

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer earlier, on September 30, 2002, had filed suit against WorldCom and other crooked  telecommunications companies and executives -- such as Qwest.  He was to go on to challenge the corrupt practices of the country's largest insurer, AIG.  He targeted myriad mutual fund trading abuses which Federal agencies had ignored.  Spitzer soon achieved near-universal name recognition, crucial for any up-and-coming politician.  But he also prodded some "Sleepy Hollow" Federal regulatory agencies into action.  And, by so doing, actually helped the country, that's for sure.

"Pay Parity" and "A More Commodious Building"
Throughout much of the 1990s, you see, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) was preoccupied and thus truly asleep at the switch.  Chairman Arthur Leavitt wanted to change the accounting industry's practices, specifically the provision of "consulting services" by corporate auditors.  Congress having voted him down, however, the SEC decided to focus on achieving "pay parity" -- if not with Wall Street, at least with other Federal financial regulators.  And, building a "more commodious" headquarters (they finally got one  -- a 400,000 square foot-plus structure near Washing­ton's Union Station.

Wall Street scams, bubbles, miscellaneous thievery, and fraudulent reports?  Messrs. Grubman, Blodget et al.?  Are you kidding?  Until Eliot Spitzer showed up, guns a'blazing, the SEC was truly "Sleepy Hollow."  So, too, was the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York -- the Justice Department agency that's supposed to be policing Wall Street and the money markets.  Who knew what they were doing!

Beating Up on Bell Companies
It wasn't just the SEC, either, which Eliot Spitzer sort-of frontally embarrassed -- bearing in mind the old admonition that Federal agencies don't embarrass easily.  Throughout the go-go years of the late 1990s, you see, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) focused on beating up on the Bell companies, and not much else.  One regulatory Alhambra after another was erected, only to be partially demolished by some skeptical Federal appeals court.  But no matter what the appeals courts said -- or, Congress suggested -- very little distracted the FCC and its staff from the Bell companies.  It was like Riki-Tiki-Tavi and the cobras, all fixated on one another.  Or, Cap'n Ahab chasing a pod of white whales.

Meanwhile, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and Qwest, among others crooked communications companies were literally walking away with the store.  It was the functional equivalent of those thieves who periodically use a front-end loader to cart away an ATM machine.  As FCC Chairman Michael Powell made clear in his July 11, 2002, letter to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Michael Oxley, moreover, during virtually all this extraordinary time in American economic history, the FCC and its staff were gracious enough to cut the swindlers a great deal of slack. 

The agency neither enforced nor waived a series of statutory regulatory requirements.  No one at the Federal Government's telecommunications regulatory agency thought it necessary to look into the financial activities of its regulated markets.  Nor, did the FCC telephone, write, email, or otherwise contact the SEC, U.S. Attorney, or other Federal enforcement personnel about these matters.  It's a record of casual disregard that ought to embarrass those folks, you'd think. 

In Fairness, the FCC did have its own new building under planning and construction during much of this period.  Do you think the pear wood paneling selected for the new dais really works?  What about the Commissioners's own oversized offices, complete with full baths, kitchenettes, and all the other accoutrements so rarely offered to PAS-IV level appointees?  How's the web site?  Fancy enough

So, don't worry, all you WorldCom employees and investors who lost your life savings!  Or, US West/Qwest workers who saw the company plundered.  Or, AT&T workers and retirees who saw an American institution demolished, right before their very eyes.  At least the FCC Commissioners took very good care of themselves during the prime swindling period, didn't they?  They also feel your pain periodically, at least, of that you can be sure. 

Now: The Payola Scandal
why this rehash of by-now ancient history?  Simple.  This past week, the Sheriff of Wall Street struck again, announcing a $10 million settlement with Sony over the unlawful "payola" activities of that firm and its Bertlesmann music partner.  (The money, incidentally, will be paid to Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers which, in turn, will distribute it to New York arts and education nonprofits.)
[1]

Now, "payola" and its partner, "plugola," are longstanding Federal offenses, first recognized in the 1950s.  Back in the era of the quiz show scandals. [2]   And, it's not as it these are some obscure transgressions buried away in some arcane FCC report and order only the staff which wrote it will ever read.  Sections 317 and 507 of the Communications Act proscribe the sort of conduct which apparently was the object of Sheriff Spitzer's latest inquiry.  It's right there, right in the statute -- like all those require­ments on WorldCom, Global Crossing, and other crooked telecommunications companies the FCC ignored. 

So, where were the FCC Enforcement Bureau "police" during this particular series of illegal transaction?  Well, many of them were still beating up on Bell companies -- the more local access lines they lose, you see, the harder you have to beat on them, right?  And, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau staff were also pouring through complaints about Janet Jackson's sterling silver nipple guard, whether a penis was obvious during the opening ceremonies of the Athens Olympics, or if the "f-bomb" was dropped during a music awards show.  Crucial things like that.

Meanwhile, at least two of the country's largest radio operations -- Clear Channel and Viacom's Infinity -- evidently were all wrapped up with Sony and Bertlesmann personnel, pushing various songs and records in return for gifts.  Actually, the FCC and its staff aren't quite sure what's happening, or happened.  Until the Los Angeles Times and other papers reported the Spitzer-Sony BMG settlement, you see, the country's communica­tions "watch-dogs" knew about as much as anyone else!  What a national embarrassment!

"Interfering With the Essential Work of the Hospital"
Now, it seems to us that this latest institutional embarrassment really ought to prompt the FCC to undertake an attic-to-basement review of exactly what they're doing.  When did the FCC know, in other words, and what did they do about it?

Granted, we're not overly optimistic.  In that July 2002 letter, Chairman Powell made a lot of promises to Congressman Oxley -- new initia­tives to reach out to other Federal enforcement agencies, more emphasis on ensuring an honest telecommunications marketplace, etc.  So far as we can tell, however, little has actually been done, has it?  Heck, we seem to be about the only people aware of the FCC commitment -- we expect they've long ago lost the letter and none of the Bureau staff are aware it exists!  Certainly none of the Commissioners know anything about this.

Collaboration with the SEC or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is not standard operating practice for the FCC today.  They're not collecting Wall Street-type financial information.  None of the FCC nor its senior staff have even declared the basic importance of honesty in the communications business.  It's pretty much the same in July 2005 as it was in July 2002 -- or, July 1997, for that matter. 

On the Broadcasting Front
On the broadcasting and cable fronts, the FCC doesn't seem very busy either, does it?  Once upon a time, the regulatory parts of the FCC also handled the enforcement, but then a new-and-innovative Enforcement Bureau was created.  It took over all the activities of the regulatory bureaus.  And, according to budget submissions, a lot of the routine compliance activities were pruned back.

Once upon a time, for instance, an FCC Field Operations Bureau official would periodically visit all the radio and TV stations in the country to make sure that things were going according to the rules.  But the Hundt Commission demolished much of the Field Operations Bureau, substituting instead 800-number complaint lines!  On-site station audits these days are rare -- which, of course, only facilitates the sort of commercial skullduggery Spitzer identified. 

The FCC also used to pay considerable attention to matters including fraudulent billing -- stations not airing the commercials companies have paid for.  There's less of that, too.  FCC Commissioners talk a lot about community service, growing concentration of control, and Janet Jackson's sterling silver nipple guard.  You have to draw the line somewhere, after all.  But on the things which ensure the honesty and law abidingness of broadcasting, there doesn't seem to be much consistent focus, does there?

What Needs To Be Done?
Well, you'd probably have more of a chance redirecting a very large crude carrier on the open seas with a one-person kayak than persuading the FCC actually to change any aspect of how this agency does business.  It's just as entrenched, just as intransigent when it comes to change as the SEC, after all.  No cause is too lost, however, but that it cannot be pursued relentlessly by your Review, right?

So, here's what the FCC needs to do at a minimum in view of this latest institutional embarrassment:

  • Appropriate High-Level Attention.  First, the FCC Chairman, his colleagues on the Commission, and the agency's senior staff need directly to say to broadcasters that they want and expect an honest, law abiding business.  Don't act as if all the industry were crooks.  They're obviously not.  But do make clear that the Government's watching.  And, stress that it's simply unfair for some in the industry to game the system, and, in the process, hurt the reputation of all those who try to do an honest, good job.
     

  • Regular Audits.  Second, the FCC needs to caucus with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters (MST), the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), and the television networks which aren't associated with the NAB.  At present, the FCC requires regular audits of telephone companies.  There needs to be the same for every radio and television station -- and, every cable system as well.  We're not talking attestation-grade audits.  But an independent auditor needs to come in, look at the books and records, write-up a report, and provide a copy to management -- as well as the FCC's Media Bureau.  Companies do this routinely for their owners and investors.  This needs to be done here.  And, the FCC needs to have the industry come up with procedures on how this will be done. 
     

  • "Proactive."  Third, the FCC leadership needs to instruct its Enforcement Bureau staff that they expect them to be "proactive."  For years, the FCC's enforcement processes have been almost exclusively complaint-driven -- and, the rules even made it difficult to file a complaint.  Now, it's far easier to complain, to rat-out a broadcaster or cable company you don't like.  You can denounce them online, in the best traditions of the Venetian Republic.  But the FCC Enforcement Bureau is still in the Maytag repairman mode -- waiting for someone to call.  That's not good.

    The FCC and its staff get all sorts of paper and electronic publications in addition to Communications Daily (which they sometimes seem exclusively to read).  Well, they should scour all these publications, see what's bothering folks, and check around a bit.  There are lots of news reports about cable television companies badgering the programmers, for instance, or broadcast networks beating up on affiliates to clear more racy "reality shows."  Instead of sitting there, waiting for someone to leave a voice mail, the Enforcement Bureau staff should be out there, snooping around -- and, they need to make it clear to the regulatees that that's what they're doing, too. 
     

  • Quotas.  Finally, consideration might be given to establishing independent enforcement quotas, guidelines which might even rise, year by year.  As part of their annual budget preparation and submission, the FCC Enforcement Bureau staff should show that an ascending percentage of enforcement actions each fiscal year are the result of staff initiative and perspicacity -- not just sitting there, waiting for some 800-number line to ring. 

Conclusion
In 1940's My Little Chickadee, Ms. Flower Belle Lee's (Mae West) in court, readers will recall, and the country bumpkin-like judge says, "Are you showing contempt for this court, young lady?"  To which she famously replies, "No, your Honor, I'm trying my best to conceal it."

Well, how do you think Attorney General Spitzer and his 10 staffers feel about these huge, manifestly ineffective Federal regulatory agencies?  He's doing a good job concealing it, in any event. 

But now is the time for the FCC to take the initiative.  They let down the American public when it came to WorldCom, Global Crossing, Qwest, and other swindling telecommunica­tions companies.  They didn't do their duty.  They still have not put in-place the rules and procedures needed to make sure that sort of fantastic defalcation doesn't happen again in the telephone business. 

They could, however, actually make progress in broadcasting.  They could foster more attention to the plain words of their own enabling statute.  And, it seems to us that would be a good thing.

Television and radio broadcasting, and increasingly cable television, too, are critical "lubricants of commerce," to use Sir Winston Churchill's term.  The advertising services they provide are crucial to our economy.  And, they remain the primary source of news, information, and entertainment for nearly 300 million people -- not to mention the critical link in national warnings.  If these industries are going to attract the investment dollars they need to continue serving public and country, their reputation for honesty and law abidingness has to be central.  The FCC could actually promote that and, by so doing, help the country.  Imagine that!

 

     [1]   During some of the time of these various transgressions, the former head of the Antitrust Division, now New York City Commissioner of Education, Joel Klein, was head of Bertlesmann's North American operations.  At least nominally.  Whether he knew, or should have known, of these record sale promotion activities isn't known.  Maybe the FCC can ask. 

     [2]   See J. Gregory Sidak & David Kronemyer, "The 'New Payola' and the American Record Industry: Transaction Costs & Precautionary Ignorance of Contracts for Illicit Services," in the 1981 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (accessible through the Social Science Research Network (>>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/­results.cfm<<)).
 


 

Regulatory Policymaking Assessment Memorandum
Re:  TV Channel Re-Purposing:  "Where's the Meat?

Introduction
For the past few years, the FCC's plan to re-purpose the radio frequency spectrum now used by broadcast television -- the "analog channels" -- has attracted a good deal of attention.  Lots of claimants have appeared.  The police, fire departments, and emergency medical services folks all want more channels.  Remember the Duchess of Windsor's admonition:  "You can never be too thin or too rich"?  Well, when it comes to radio frequencies and spectrum, you can never get enough, either.

In recent years, various technology companies and loose coalitions have mate