Yesterday’s Public Knowledge - Silicon Flatirons conference entitled “Reforming the Federal Communications Commission” brought together former Chairmen, Commissioners and staff members of the agency, along with other experts. They provided perspectives on the agency and how it has operated in the past, how it operates currently, and how it might operate in the future. The consensus was clear – the FCC has serious procedural, organizational and cultural problems and is long overdue for an overhaul.
A lot of great ideas for reform came out of the conference, and they revolved around a number of themes. It is hard to fit them into clear categories, so I will simply lay them out. The was general agreement that a healthy FCC must
make policy decisions based on objective data and facts, not ideology and industry-purchased data;
engage in more strategic planning and be forthright about its policy goals;
restore procedural fairness, including, but not limited to stopping abuses of the ex parte rules, making sure Notices of Proposed Rulemaking actually propose rules, and issuing texts of decisions on the day the item is voted upon;
be more transparent in two ways: first, it must give the public more information about what decisions it is making, how it is making them and why; and it must allow for the public to have more meaningful input into the policymaking process. The former might necessitate revision of the Government in Sunshine Act, which requires public notice and a public meeting anytime more than two Commissioners meet at one time.
be reorganized into functions, not into technological silos;
be staffed with people whose mission is to promote the public interest, not to get a high paying job with industry;
be staffed with a diversity of expertise (e.g., more economists, technologists and real business people) and cultural experiences);
rely more on adjudication in enforcement matters where there are facts in dispute;
better balance the power between the Chair and the Commissioners;
develop and empower staff in a way that restores morale and makes them feel like vital players in the operation of the agency;
lead, listen and learn, particularly through input by the academic community;
ensure that every staff member has a clear role that promotes the agency’s policy goals; and
promote innovation.
While these are all great outcomes, how to actually achieve these reform goals is a much harder question. Our hope is that we can get some ideas from you at the new website we have set up to provide information and solicit input on how to improve the FCC. We plan on submitting those suggestions to the appropriate authorities in the new administration.
Comments
Yeah okay but
What is so different about this FCC as opposed to the Powell or the Kenard or the Hundt or the Quello FCC’s (previous chairs). Yes, indeed, throughout you can point to things that raise concern and could be better. And they should be addressed. But what is different about this FCC is who ran it. The problem has been not the institution of the FCC but the leadership of the FCC. The leadership has had a problematic policy that has not served this country - and led us to a dismal place in terms of comm policy. But this is not the same as critiquing the institution.
I am not saying that the institution does not need improvement. But do not confuse the captain with the ship. The captain is the one that ran the ship aground - even if it was a splendid seaworthy ship.
Nudity vs. Violence on TV
Who decides that it’s ok to show the gory details of killing a human but when naked body parts are shown they are blurred out? Why? What kind of message does this send to children, adults, society? What social impacts could the showing of a naked breast on TV have versus showing the details of a beheading? Why is ok to show violence but it’s not ok to show love? Even other animals “private” parts are made fuzzy. This is sick in my opinion. After all it’s natural, it’s science, it’s reality.
Unscramble Basic Cable - QAM Tuner / tru2way
The cable industry has used their strength to move certain channels to different tiers and will eventually require basic stations to only be viewed with their digital cable boxes- for an additional fee. Can’t the FCC mandate that basic be broadcast using QAM tuners? Eventually, most flat screen TVs will be wall mounted, but now we need yet another shelf to hold a cable box to use the tvs. Basically, a $1000 tv is a useless paperweight (not counting 5 channels over the air- maybe) unless there is a cable box. Like a brand new stereo, but with no radio stations. Why did it take 10 years for tru2way to be established. By the time the conversion happens, most people will have there digital tvs, but tied to a box- instead of putting a card in the TV.
In my opinion, the FCC has failed in protecting the consumer and sparking innovation. The US should be the leader this technology. Instead, we are tied to a box in our house for every service, no choice in providers and we pay over $800 per year. If we don’t, we will never see CNN or Discovery channels, which I consider basic television.
One last thought- The FCC should figure a way to foster competition in all local levels. Maybe tax incentives to explore new areas. I have only one cable provider. I pay their price- or my family has no TV.
Post new comment