U.S. Federal Communications Commission

"FCC" redirects here. For other uses, see Ministry of Communications and FCC (disambiguation).
Federal Communications Commission
FCC

official seal

logo
Agency overview
Formed June 19, 1934
Preceding Agency Federal Radio Commission
Jurisdiction Federal government of the United States
Headquarters 445 12th Street SW, Washington, D.C.
38°53′00″N 77°01′44″W / 38.8834°N 77.0288°WCoordinates: 38°53′00″N 77°01′44″W / 38.8834°N 77.0288°W
Employees 1,720[1]
Annual budget US$336.8 million (FY 2011)[2]
Agency executive Thomas Wheeler, Chairman
Website www.fcc.gov
Footnotes
[3]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security. The Commission is also in the process of modernizing itself.[4]

The FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the Federal Radio Commission. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. The FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America. The FCC is funded entirely by regulatory fees. It has an estimated fiscal-2011 budget of US$335.8 million and a proposed fiscal-2012 budget of $354.2 million. It has 1,720 federal employees.[2]

Mission and strategy

The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created "for the purpose of the national defense" and "for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications."[4]

Consistent with the objectives of the Act as well as the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the FCC has identified six goals in its 2006–2011 Strategic Plan. These are:

Broadband
"All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services."
Competition
"Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation's economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services."
Spectrum
"Efficient and effective use of non-federal spectrum domestically and internationally promotes the growth and rapid development of innovative and efficient communication technologies and services."
Media
"The Nation's media regulations must promote competition and diversity and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery."
Public Safety and Homeland Security
"Communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation's critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable."
Modernize the FCC
"The Commission shall strive to be highly productive, adaptive, and innovative organization that maximizes the benefits to stakeholders, staff, and management from effective systems, processes, resources, and organizational culture."[4]

Organization

Commissioners

The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.[3][5]

Name Position Residence Party Term[6]
Expires
Jessica Rosenworcel Commissioner Connecticut D 2015
Ajit Pai Commissioner Kansas R 2016
Mignon Clyburn Commissioner South Carolina D 2017
Thomas Wheeler Chairman District of Columbia D 2018
Michael O'Rielly Commissioner New York R 2019

Bureaus

The FCC is organized into seven Bureaus,[7] which process applications for licenses and other filings, analyze complaints, conduct investigations, develop and implement regulations, and participate in hearings.

Offices

The FCC has eleven Staff Offices.[7] The FCC's Offices provide support services to the Bureaus.

History

Federal Communications Commission seen in Washington, D.C. in 1937. Seated (l-r) Eugene Octave Sykes, Frank R. McNinch, Chairman Paul Atlee Walker, Standing (l-r) T.A.M. Craven, Thad H. Brown, Norman S. Case, and George Henry Payne.
FCC Commissioners inspect the latest in television, December 1, 1939.

Communications Act of 1934

In 1934, Congress passed the Communications Act, which abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to a new Federal Communications Commission, including in it also the telecommunications jurisdiction previously handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Title II of the Communications Act focused on telecommunications using many concepts borrowed from railroad legislation and Title III contained provisions very similar to the Radio Act of 1927.

Report on Chain Broadcasting

In 1940, the Federal Communications Commission issued the "Report on Chain Broadcasting" which was led by new FCC Chairman James Lawrence Fly. The major point in the report was the breakup of NBC (National Broadcasting Company), which ultimately led to the creation of ABC (American Broadcasting Company), but there were two other important points. One was network option time, the culprit here being CBS. The report limited the amount of time during the day, and what times the networks may broadcast. Previously a network could demand any time it wanted from an affiliate. The second concerned artist bureaus. The networks served as both agents and employers of artists, which was a conflict of interest the report rectified.

Freeze of 1948

In assigning television stations to various cities after World War II, the FCC found that it placed many stations too close to each other, resulting in interference. At the same time, it became clear that the designated VHF channels, 2 through 13, were inadequate for nationwide television service. As a result, the FCC stopped giving out construction permits for new licenses in October 1948. Most expected this "Freeze" to last six months, but as the allocation of channels to the emerging UHF technology and the eagerly awaited possibilities of color television were debated, the FCC's re-allocation map of stations did not come until April 1952, with July 1, 1952 as the official beginning of licensing new stations.

Other FCC actions hurt the fledgling DuMont and ABC networks. AT&T Corporation forced television coaxial cable users to rent additional radio long lines, discriminating against DuMont, which had no radio network operation. DuMont and ABC protested AT&T's television policies to the FCC, which regulated AT&T's long-line charges, but the commission took no action. The result was that financially marginal DuMont was spending as much in long-line charge as CBS or NBC while using only about 10 to 15 percent of the time and mileage of either larger network.[8]

The FCC's "Sixth Report & Order" ended the Freeze. It would take five years for the U.S. to grow from 108 stations to more than 550. New stations came on line slowly, only five by the end of November 1952. The Sixth Report and Order required some existing TV stations to change channels, but only a few existing VHF stations were required to move to UHF, and a handful of VHF channels were deleted altogether in smaller media markets like Peoria, Fresno, Bakersfield and Fort Wayne, Indiana to create markets which were UHF "islands." The report also set aside a number of channels for the newly emerging field of educational television, which hindered struggling ABC and DuMont's quest for affiliates in the more desirable markets where VHF channels were reserved for non-commercial use.

The Sixth Report and Order also provided for the "intermixture" of VHF and UHF channels in most markets; UHF transmitters in the 1950s were not yet powerful enough, nor receivers sensitive enough (if they included UHF tuners at all - they were not formally required until the 1960s All-Channel Receiver Act), to make UHF viable against entrenched VHF stations. In markets where there were no VHF stations and UHF was the only TV service available, UHF survived. In other markets, which were too small to financially support a television station, too close to VHF outlets in nearby cities, or where UHF was forced to compete with more than one well-established VHF station, UHF had little chance for success.

Denver had been the largest U.S. city without a TV station by 1952. Senator Edwin Johnson (D-Colorado), chair of the Senate's Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, had made getting Denver the first post-Freeze station his personal mission. He had pressured the FCC, and proved ultimately successful as the first new station (a VHF station) came on-line a remarkable ten days after the Commission formally announced the first post-Freeze construction permits. KFEL (now KWGN-TV)'s first regular telecast was on July 21, 1952.[9][10]

Telephone monopoly to competition

See also: History of AT&T

The important relationship of the FCC and the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Company has evolved over several years. For many years, the FCC and state officials agreed to regulate the telephone systems as a natural monopoly. The FCC controlled telephone rates to limit the profits of AT&T and ensure nondiscriminatory pricing. In the 1960s, the FCC began allowing other long-distance companies, namely MCI, to offer specialized services. In the 1970s, the FCC allowed other companies to expand offerings to the public. A lawsuit in 1982 led by the Justice Department after AT&T underpriced other companies, resulted in the split of the Bells from AT&T. Beginning in 1984, the FCC implemented a new goal that all long-distance companies had equal access to the local phone companies' customers.

Telecommunications Act of 1996

In 1996, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in the wake of the break-up of AT&T resulting from the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust suit against AT&T. The legislation attempted to create more competition in local telephone service by requiring Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers to provide access to their facilities for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. This policy has thus far had limited success and much criticism.[11]

The development of the Internet, cable services and wireless services has raised questions whether new legislative initiates are needed as to competition in what has come to be called 'broadband' services. Congress has monitored developments but as of 2009 has not undertaken a major revision of applicable regulation. The Local Community Radio Act in the 111th Congress has gotten out of committee and will go before the house floor with bi-partisan support,[12] and unanimous support of the FCC.[13]

By passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress also eliminated the cap on the number of radio stations one entity could own nationwide and substantially loosened local radio station ownership restrictions. Substantial radio consolidation followed.[14] Restrictions on ownership of television stations were also loosened.[15] Public comments to the FCC indicated that the public largely believed that the severe consolidation of media ownership had resulted in harm to diversity, localism, and competition in media, and was harmful to the public interest.[16]

Connection permissivity, indecency crackdowns

The inauguration of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1981 accelerated an already ongoing shift in the FCC towards a decidedly more market-oriented stance. A number of regulations felt to be outdated were removed, most controversially the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The FCC also took steps to increase competition to broadcasters, fostering broadcast alternatives such as cable television. In terms of indecency fines, there was no action taken by the FCC from FCC v. Pacifica until 1987, about ten years later.

In the early 2000s, the FCC began stepping up censorship and enforcement of indecency regulations again, most notably following the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" that occurred during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII. However, the FCC's regulatory domain with respect to indecency remains restricted to the public airwaves, notably VHF and UHF television and AM/FM radio.

On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 sponsored by then-Senator Sam Brownback (now Governor of Kansas), a former broadcaster himself, and endorsed by Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan who authored a similar bill in the United States House of Representatives. The new law stiffens the penalties for each violation of the Act. The Federal Communications Commission will be able to impose fines in the amount of $325,000 for each violation by each station that violates decency standards. The legislation raised the fine ten times over the previous maximum of $32,500 per violation.[17][18]

Past chairs and notable commissioners

A complete list of commissioners is available on the FCC website.[19] In addition to chairmen, Frieda B. Hennock (D-NY) was the first female commissioner of the FCC.

Broadcast licensing

Regulatory powers and enforcement

The FCC regulates broadcast stations, amateur radio operators, and repeater stations as well as commercial broadcasting operators who operate and repair certain radiotelephone, television, radar, and Morse code radio stations. In recent years it has also licensed people who maintain or operate GMDSS stations. Broadcast licenses are to be renewed if the station meets the "public interest, convenience, or necessity".

The FCC's enforcement powers include fines and broadcast license revocation (see FCC MB Docket 04-232). Burden of proof would be on the complainant in a petition to deny. Fewer than 1% of station renewals are not immediately granted, and only a small fraction of those are ultimately denied.

While the FCC maintains control of the written and Morse testing standards, it no longer administers the exams, having delegated that function to private organizations.

Broadcasting tower database

An FCC database provides information about the height and year built of broadcasting towers in the US.[20] It does not contain information about the structural types of towers or about the height of towers used by Federal agencies, such as most NDBs, LORAN-C transmission towers or VLF transmission facilities of the US Navy, or about most towers not used for transmission like the BREN Tower. These are instead tracked by the Federal Aviation Administration as obstructions to air navigation.

Internet

In North America, the FCC made its original Internet policy statement containing four principles "subject to reasonable network management" in 2005. The Commission established the following principles: To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

In December 2010, the FCC revised the principles from the original Internet policy statement and created The Open Internet Order consisting of three rules regarding the Internet: Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services; No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and No unreasonable discrimination. In April 2014, the FCC created a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that called for reform regarding The Open Internet Order. In February 2015, the FCC passed new Open Internet Rules through Congress into law.

Controversies

Unreleased reports

2003 study of commercial radio concentration

In 2003, the FCC Media Bureau produced a draft report analyzing the impact of deregulation in the radio industry.[21] The report stated that from March 1996 through March 2003, the number of commercial radio stations on the air rose 5.9 percent while the number of station owners fell 35 percent. The concentration of ownership followed a 1996 rewrite of telecommunications law that eliminated a 40-station national ownership cap.

The report was never made public, nor have any similar analyses followed, despite the fact that radio industry reports were released in 1998, 2001 and 2002. In September 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer, who had received a copy of the report, released it.[22]

2004 study of television media concentration

In 2004, the FCC ordered its staff to destroy all copies of a draft study by Keith Brown and Peter Alexander, two economists in the FCC's Media Bureau. The two had analyzed a database of 4,078 individual news stories broadcast in 1998, and showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of "on-location" news.

The conclusion of the study was at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. (In June 2004, a federal appeals court rejected the agency's reasoning on most of the rules and ordered it to try again.)

In September 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer, who had received a copy of the report "indirectly from someone within the FCC who believed the information should be made public," wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, asked whether any other commissioners "past or present" knew of the report's existence and why it was never made public. She also asked whether it was "shelved because the outcome was not to the liking of some of the commissioners and/or any outside powerful interests?" Boxer's office said if she does not receive adequate answers to her questions, she will push for an investigation by the FCC inspector general.[23]

Action by FCC Chairman

In a letter in response to Senator Boxer, FCC Chairman Martin said "I want to assure you that I too am concerned about what happened to these two draft reports." The letter also said "I have asked the inspector general of the FCC to conduct an investigation into what happened to these draft documents and will cooperate fully with him." Martin added that he was not chairman at the time the reports were drafted, and that neither he nor his staff had seen them.[22]

NSA wiretapping

When it emerged in 2006 that AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon may have broken U.S. laws by aiding the National Security Agency in possible illegal wiretapping of its customers, Congressional representatives called for an FCC investigation into whether or not those companies broke the law. The FCC declined to investigate, however, claiming that it could not investigate due to the classified nature of the program– a move that provoked the criticism of members of Congress.

"Today the watchdog agency that oversees the country's telecommunications industry refused to investigate the nation's largest phone companies' reported disclosure of phone records to the NSA," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in response to the decision. "The FCC, which oversees the protection of consumer privacy under the Communications Act of 1934, has taken a pass at investigating what is estimated to be the nation's largest violation of consumer privacy ever to occur. If the oversight body that monitors our nation's communications is stepping aside then Congress must step in."[24]

Diversity

With the major demographic shifts occurring in the country in terms of the racial-ethnic composition of the population, the FCC has also been criticized for ignoring the issue of decreasing racial-ethnic diversity of the media. This includes charges that the FCC has been watering down the limited affirmative action regulations it had on the books, including no longer requiring stations to make public their data on their minority staffing and hiring. In the second half of 2006, groups such as the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the National Latino Media Council, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the National Institute for Latino Policy, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and others held town hall meetings[25] in California, New York and Texas on media diversity as its effects Latinos and minority communities. They documented widespread and deeply felt community concerns about the negative effects of media concentration and consolidation on racial-ethnic diversity in staffing and programming.[26] At these Latino town hall meetings, the issue of the FCC's lax monitoring of obscene and pornographic material in Spanish-language radio and the lack of racial and national-origin diversity among Latino staff in Spanish-language television were other major themes.

President Barack Obama appointed Mark Lloyd to the FCC in the newly created post of Associate General Counsel/Chief Diversity Officer.[27][28]

Use of white space

"White spaces" are radio frequencies that went unused after the federally mandated transformation of analog TV signal to digital. On October 15, 2008, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced his support for the unlicensed use of white spaces. Martin said he was "hoping to take advantage of utilizing these airwaves for broadband services to allow for unlicensed technologies and new innovations in that space."[29]

Google, Microsoft and other companies are vying for the use of this white-space to support innovation in Wi-Fi technology. Broadcasters and wireless microphone manufacturers fear that the use of white space would "disrupt their broadcasts and the signals used in sports events and concerts."[30] Cell phone providers such as T-Mobile USA have mounted pressure on the FCC to instead offer up the white space for sale to boost competition and market leverage.

On November 4, 2008, the FCC commissioners unanimously agreed to open up unused broadcast TV spectrum for unlicensed use.[31][32]

Net neutrality

The FCC has claimed some jurisdiction over the issue of net neutrality and has laid down guideline rules that it expects the telecommunications industry to follow. On February 11, 2008 Rep. Ed Markey and Rep. Chip Pickering introduced HR5353 "To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summit to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes."[33] On 1 August 2008 the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to upholding a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. The FCC imposed no fine, but required Comcast to end such blocking in 2008. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that "We are preserving the open character of the Internet" and "We are saying that network operators can't block people from getting access to any content and any applications." Martin's successor, Julius Genachowski has maintained that the FCC has no plans to regulate the internet, saying: "I've been clear repeatedly that we're not going to regulate the Internet."[34] The Comcast case highlighted broader issues of whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to maintain net neutrality, i.e. treat all uses of their networks equally. The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, software that is commonly used for downloading larger files.[35] On November 10, 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[36][37][38] On January 16, 2015, Republicans presented legislation, in the form of a U. S. Congress H. R. discussion draft bill, that makes concessions to net neutrality but prohibits the FCC from accomplishing the goal or enacting any further regulation affecting Internet service providers (ISPs).[39][40] On January 31, 2015, AP News reported the FCC will present the notion of applying ("with some caveats") Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on February 26, 2015.[41][42][43][44][45] Adoption of this notion would reclassify internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications [46] and, according to Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, ensure net neutrality.[47][48] The FCC is expected to enforce net neutrality in its vote, according to the New York Times.[49][50]

On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the Internet.[51][52][53] The FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, commented, "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."[54] Net neutrality is supported by 81% of Americans, according to a Washington Post poll. According to the poll, 81% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans said they opposed fast lanes.[55]

On March 12, 2015, the FCC released the specific details of the net neutrality rules.[56][57][58] On April 13, 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new "Net Neutrality" regulations.[59][60]

Proprietary standards

The FCC has also been criticized for ignoring international open standards, and instead choosing proprietary closed standards, or allowing communications companies to do so and implement the anticompetitive practice of vendor lock-in, thereby preventing a free market.

In the case of digital TV, it chose the ATSC standard, even though DVB was already in use around the world, including DVB-S satellite TV in the U.S. Unlike competing standards, the ATSC system is encumbered by numerous patents, and therefore royalties that make TV sets and DTV converters much more expensive than in the rest of the world. Additionally, the claimed benefit of better reception in rural areas is more than negated in urban areas by multipath interference, which other systems are nearly immune to. It also cannot be received while in motion for this reason, while all other systems can, even without dedicated mobile TV signals or receivers.

For digital radio, the FCC chose proprietary HD Radio, which crowds the existing FM broadcast band and even AM broadcast band with in-band adjacent-channel sidebands, which create noise in other stations. This is in contrast to worldwide DAB, which uses unused TV channels in the VHF band III range. This too has patent fees, while DAB does not. While there has been some effort by iBiquity to lower them,[61] the fees for HD Radio are still an enormous expense when converting each station, and this fee structure presents a potentially high cost barrier to entry for community radio and other non-commercial educational stations when entering the HD Radio market.[62]

Satellite radio (also called SDARS by the FCC) uses two proprietary standards instead of DAB-S, which requires users to change equipment when switching from one provider to the other, and prevents other competitors from offering new choices as stations can do on terrestrial radio. Had the FCC picked DAB-T for terrestrial radio, no separate satellite receiver would have been needed at all, and the only difference from DAB receivers in the rest of the world would be in software, where it would need to tune S band instead of L band.

In mobile telephony, the FCC abandoned the "any lawful device" principle decided against AT&T landlines, and has instead allowed each mobile phone company to dictate what its customers can use.[63][64]

DTV controversy

The FCC has been criticized for awarding a digital TV (DTV) channel to each holder of an analog TV station license without an auction, as well as trading auctionable spectrum to Nextel to resolve public safety RF interference problems. Conversely, it has also been criticized for forcing stations to buy and install all new equipment (transmitters, TV antennas, and even entirely new broadcast towers), and operate for years on both channels at once.

After delaying the original deadlines of 2006, 2008, and eventually February 17, 2009, on concerns about elderly and rural folk, on June 12 all full-power analog terrestrial TV licenses in the U.S. were terminated as part of the DTV transition, leaving terrestrial television available only from digital channels and a few low-power LPTV stations. To help U.S. consumers through the conversion, Congress established a federally sponsored DTV Converter Box Coupon Program for two free converters per household.

Modernization of the FCC's information technology systems

David A. Bray joined the Commission in 2013 as Chief Information Officer and quickly announced goals of modernizing the FCC's legacy information technology (IT) systems, citing 200 different systems for only 1750 people a situation he found "perplexing".[65][66] He was named as one of the top 70 Most Social U.S. federal technology professionals in 2014, openly discussing new opportunities with the public as @fcc_cio on Twitter and actively blogging about FCC efforts.[67][68]

Bray has openly encouraged opportunities to broaden the definition of public service to include citizen-led initiatives and great public-private partnerships.[69][70] He also has emphasized: "As IT accelerates its global distribution and ubiquitous availability, the importance of assuring the integrity of digital communications become paramount" and that communications support "national growth, prosperity, security, safety, and freedom."[71][72]

Local broadcasting

After being successful in opening the FM band as a superior alternative to the AM band by allowing colleges and other schools to start ten-watt LPFM stations, the FCC banned new ones around 1980.

Numerous controversies have surrounded the city of license concept as the internet has made it possible to broadcast a single signal to every owned station in the nation at once, particularly when Clear Channel became the largest FM broadcasting corporation in the US after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law - owning over 1200 stations at its peak. As part of its license to buy more radio stations, Clear Channel was forced to divest all TV stations.

Public consultation

As the public interest standard has always been important to the FCC when determining and shaping policy, so too has the relevance of public involvement in U.S. communication policy making.[73] The FCC Record is the comprehensive compilation of decisions, reports, public notices, and other documents of the FCC, published since 1986.[74][75]

History of the issue

1927 Radio Act

In the 1927 Radio Act, which was formulated by the predecessor of the FCC (the Federal Radio Commission), section 4(k) stipulated that the commission was authorized to hold hearings for the purpose of developing a greater understanding of the issues for which rules were being crafted. Section 4(k) stated that:

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the commission, from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall… have the authority to hold hearings, summon witnesses, administer oaths, compel the production of books, documents, and papers and to make such investigations as may be necessary in the performance of its duties.

Thus, it is clear that public consultation, or at least consultation with outside bodies was regarded as central to the Commission's job from early on. Though it should not be surprising, the Act also stipulated that the Commission should verbally communicate with those being assigned licenses. Section 11 of the Act noted:

If upon examination of any application for a station license or for the renewal or modification of a station license the licensing authority shall determine that public interest, convenience, or necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall authorize the issuance, renewal, or modification thereof in accordance with said finding. In the event the licensing authority upon examination of any such application does not reach such decision with respect thereto, it shall notify the applicant thereof, shall fix and give notice of a time and place for hearing thereon, and shall afford such applicant an opportunity to be heard under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe.

Public hearings

As early as 1927, there is evidence that public hearings were indeed held; among them, hearings to assess the expansion of the radio broadcast band.[76] At these early hearings, the goal of having a broad range of viewpoints presented was evident, as not only broadcasters, but also radio engineers and manufacturers were in attendance. Numerous groups representing the general public appeared at the hearings as well, including amateur radio operators and inventors as well as representatives of radio listeners' organizations. Interestingly,

While some speakers at the 1927 hearings referred to having received "invitations," Herbert Hoover's assistant observed in a letter at the time that "the Radio Commission has sent out a blanket invitation to all people in the country who desire either to appear in person or to submit their recommendations in writing. I do not understand that the Commission has sent for any particular individuals, however" [Letter from George Akerson, assistant to Sec. Hoover, to Mrs. James T. Rourke, Box 497, Commerce Period Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library (March 29, 1927)] (FN 14)[76]

Including members of the general public in the discussion was regarded (or at least articulated) as very important to the Commission's deliberations. In fact, FCC Commissioner Bellows noted at the time that "it is the radio listener we must consider above everyone else."[76] Though there were numerous representatives of the general public at the hearing, some expressing their opinions to the commission verbally, overall there was not a great turnout of everyday listeners at the hearings.

Though not a constant fixture of the communications policy-making process, public hearings were occasionally organized as a part of various deliberation processes as the years progressed. For example, seven years after the enactment of the Radio Act, the Communications Act of 1934 was passed, creating the FCC. That year the Federal Government's National Recovery Agency (associated with the New Deal period) held public hearings as a part of its deliberations over the creation of new broadcasting codes.[77]

A few years later , the FCC held hearings to address early cross-ownership issues; specifically, whether newspaper companies owning radio stations was in the public interest.[78] These "newspaper divorcement hearings" were held between 1941 and 1944, though it appears that these hearings were geared mostly towards discussion by industry stakeholders. Around the same time, the Commission held hearings as a part of its evaluation of the national television standard,[79] and in 1958 held additional hearings on the television network broadcasting rules.[80] Though public hearings were organized somewhat infrequently, there was an obvious public appeal. In his now famous "vast wasteland" speech in 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow noted that the commission would hold a "well advertised public hearing" in each community to assure broadcasters were serving the public interest,[81] clearly a move to reconnect the Commission with the public interest (at least rhetorically).

Media ownership review 2003

In September 2002, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stating that the Commission would re-evaluate its media ownership rules pursuant to the obligation specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As 2003 was approaching, a battle of words (and perhaps actions) developed between Chairman Powell and Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps. Commissioner Copps felt that the Republican FCC was too focused on the neo-liberal agenda, and not focused enough on hearing the public's voice regarding the issues at hand, noting, "We need a much wider participation … this is not an inside-the-Beltway issue."[82] Copps repeatedly called for the FCC to hold public hearings with time devoted to public input. Powell responded by noting that the public had already taken advantage of the online comment submission process and that no public hearings would be necessary. A spokesman for Powell noted, "if Commissioner Copps thinks something more can be gained from having hearings, he should feel free to do so."[83] In the end, Commissioner Copps and Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein organized a number of "unofficial" FCC hearings.

On January 16, 2003, the FCC held an "unofficial" public hearing on media ownership at Columbia University; Chairman Michael Powell was in attendance. His opening remarks, however, certainly reflected the lack of interest the Commission had displayed towards public hearings in recent years:

I would be the first to agree that this kind of public discourse is one of the most, uhh, critical things that the Commission can participate in, an opportunity to hear a wide ranging set of views. Umm, I want to apologize in advance, regrettably I also have to participate today in a, a Rainbow Push Wall Street project later in the day, so I won't be able to be here all day.

The Chief of the Media Bureau and some other associates would be there all day to hear a full report on the event.

Copps remained adamant that all Commissioners should attend an official FCC hearing before any decisions were made. An editorial in Broadcasting and Cable articulated the heated nature of the eventual decision regarding an official hearing (at least from the Republican standpoint). The article is quoted at length as it includes a variety of points that are relevant:

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps got his way. … Chairman Michael Powell gave in, saying he would schedule a hearing … in Richmond, Va. … Why Richmond? To save money, says Powell. With the Virginia capital just 100 miles down I-95, the FCC won't have to pay for a lot of hotel rooms and airline tickets. We understand what Copps is trying to do: Get some thoughts on media-ownership deregulation from the common folk outside of Washington on the theory that wisdom grows proportionately with the distance from Washington. But that's a romantic notion. Does Copps really think that people in the provinces think much about media consolidation? At best, what you will get in any given town are local fronts for the Washington lobbyists and groups that spend their lives grappling with the issues. In Richmond, you probably would be able to stir up a better discussion on McClellan's Peninsula Campaign of 1862 than you will on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As Powell hinted in grudgingly agreeing to the hearing, it won't add much of value to the record. That is in part because this FCC has already taken extraordinary steps to analyze the media marketplace and build a record that will lead not only to reasonable action this spring but also to a new set of rules that may withstand judicial scrutiny. … We understand that big media can be too big and that there may be a need for some restrictions. But the burden of proof is on those who would regulate, who would place hobbles on companies and entrepreneurs for fear of what might happen (there is already a Justice Department and antitrust laws to handle what does happen), who would deprive someone of the right to speak through any medium anywhere. That proof might be out there, but it doesn't require a road trip to Richmond.[84]

Headquarters

Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C.

The FCC leases space in the Portals building in southwest Washington, D.C. Construction of the Portals building was scheduled to begin on March 1, 1996. In January 1996 the General Services Administration signed a lease with the building's owners, agreeing to let the FCC lease 450,000 square feet (42,000 m2) of space in Portals for 20 years, at a cost of $17.3 million per year in 1996 dollars. Prior to its current arrangement, the FCC had space in six buildings by 19th Street NW and M Street NW. The FCC first solicited bids for a new headquarters complex in 1989. In 1991 the GSA selected the Portals site. The FCC had wanted to move into a more expensive area along Pennsylvania Avenue.[85]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Employee Profile at the FCC". FCC. 30 Jul 2013. Retrieved 31 Dec 2014.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2012 Budget Estimate FCC Budget Estimates. FCC.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Cecilia Kang (31 October 2011). "Obama names FCC commissioners, both agency, Hill veterans". The Washington Post; Post Tech. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 "2008 Performance and Accountability Report" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. September 2008.
  5. ↑ "FCC Commissioners". FCC. Retrieved 18 July 2007.
  6. ↑ Terms expire June 30 of the subject year.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "FCC Bureaus & Offices". Retrieved June 6, 2013.
  8. ↑ Boddy, William. Fifties Television: the Industry and Its Critics. University of Illinois Press, 1992. ISBN 978-0-252-06299-5
  9. ↑ Clarke Ingram, "The DuMont Television Network: Historical Web Site". Retrieved 2009-02-01.
  10. ↑ http://www.southplainscollege.edu/dub/postfreeze.htm Douglas Gomery, "Television Sweeps the Nation: The Story Behind the Pioneering Post-"Freeze" Stations". From the W. D. "Dub" Rogers, Jr. Television Collection at South Plains College. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
  11. ↑ See, e.g., Robert Crandall
  12. ↑ "Local Community Radio Act of 2009". Govtrack.us. 2009-10-29.
  13. ↑ FCC Oversight Hearing (September 17, 2009). "FCC: Unanimous, bipartisan support for LPFM".
  14. ↑ Rachel M. Stilwell, "Which Public - Whose Interest - How the FCC's Deregulation of Radio Station Ownership Has Harmed the Public Interest, and How We Can Escape from the Swamp," 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 369, Mar. 1, 2006.
  15. ↑ David Oxenford Broadcast Law Blog, "On the 15th Anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, The Effect on Broadcasters is Still Debated," Feb. 9 2011, available at: http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2011/02/articles/on-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-telecommunications-act-of-1996-the-effect-on-broadcasters-is-still-debated/
  16. ↑ See Rachel M. Stilwell, 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 369, supra.
  17. ↑ Ahrens, Frank (2006-06-08). "The Price for On-Air Indecency Goes Up". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 June 2009.
  18. ↑ "Bill Number S. 193". Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) from Congressional THOMAS DB. Retrieved 11 April 2005.
  19. ↑ Commissioners from 1934 to Present FCC
  20. ↑ ASR Registration Search. Retrieved 4 November 2009.
  21. ↑ Fifth Review of the Radio Industry, FCC Media Bureau, undated.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 John Dunbar, Senator says media study suppressed "Senator says media study suppressed", Associated Press, 2006-09-18.
  23. ↑ John Dunbar, "Lawyer says FCC ordered study destroyed", Associated Press, 2006-09-14.
  24. ↑ FCC Refuses to Investigate NSA Program, Predicting Likely Administration Road Blocks Edward J. Markey. May 23, 2006.
  25. ↑ Ferris, David (2006-10-20). "publish.nyc.indymedia.org | FCC Town Hall Meeting Marked by Concerns over Media Consolidation". Nyc.indymedia.org. Retrieved 4 March 2012.
  26. ↑ See El Diario La Prensas editorial on media diversity.
  27. ↑ SSRC.
  28. ↑ Obama's Diversity Offensive Against Talk Radio August 30, 2009 By Christopher Ruddy.
  29. ↑ Olga Kharif (October 15, 2008). "FCC's Kevin Martin Supports Freeing White Spaces". Business Week. Retrieved 15 October 2008.
  30. ↑ David Gonzalez (October 15, 2008). "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to allow the use of portable devices on white spaces". UnWiredView.com. Retrieved 15 October 2008.
  31. ↑ Marguerite Reardon (November 4, 2008). "FCC opens free 'white space' spectrum". CNET. Retrieved 5 November 2008.
  32. ↑ FCC opens up wireless 'white spaces;' Assessing winners, losers and wild-cards November 5, 2008.
  33. ↑ HR5353
  34. ↑ The FCC Doesn't Need to Be by Peter Suderman, Reason
  35. ↑ Hansell, Saul (2008-08-02). "F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage". The New York Times.
  36. ↑ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules". New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  37. ↑ NYT Editorial Board (November 14, 2014). "Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation". New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  38. ↑ Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (January 21, 2015). "The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let’s Get It Right". Wired (website). Retrieved January 20, 2015.
  39. ↑ Weisman, Jonathan (January 19, 2015). "Shifting Politics of Net Neutrality Debate Ahead of F.C.C.Vote". New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
  40. ↑ Staff (January 16, 2015). "H. R. _ 114th Congress, 1st Session [Discussion Draft] - To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure Internet openness..." (PDF). U. S. Congress. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
  41. ↑ Lohr, Steve (February 2, 2015). "In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility". New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
  42. ↑ Lohr, Steve (February 2, 2015). "F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services". New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
  43. ↑ Flaherty, Anne (January 31, 2015). "Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that". AP News. Retrieved January 31, 2015.
  44. ↑ Fung, Brian (January 2, 2015). "Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February". Washington Post. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
  45. ↑ Staff (January 2, 2015). "FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules". AP News. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
  46. ↑ Lohr, Steve (February 4, 2015). "F.C.C. Plans Strong Hand to Regulate the Internet". New York Times. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  47. ↑ Wheeler, Tom (February 4, 2015). "FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality". Wired (magazine). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  48. ↑ The Editorial Board (February 6, 2015). "Courage and Good Sense at the F.C.C. - Net Neutrality's Wise New Rules". New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2015.
  49. ↑ Weisman, Jonathan (February 24, 2015). "As Republicans Concede, F.C.C. Is Expected to Enforce Net Neutrality". New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2015.
  50. ↑ Lohr, Steve (February 25, 2015). "The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice". New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
  51. ↑ Staff (February 26, 2015). "FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
  52. ↑ Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Lohr, Steve (February 26, 2015). "In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility". New York Times. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
  53. ↑ Flaherty, Anne (February 25, 2015). "FACT CHECK: Talking heads skew 'net neutrality' debate". AP News. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
  54. ↑ Liebelson, Dana (February 26, 2015). "Net Neutrality Prevails In Historic FCC Vote". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
  55. ↑ Ehrenfreund, Max. "New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality". Washington Post.
  56. ↑ Ruiz, Rebecca R. (March 12, 2015). "F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules". New York Times. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
  57. ↑ Sommer, Jeff (March 12, 2015). "What the Net Neutrality Rules Say". New York Times. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
  58. ↑ FCC Staff (March 12, 2015). "Federal Communications Commission - FCC 15-24 - In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet - GN Docket No. 14-28 - Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
  59. ↑ Reisinger, Don (April 13, 2015). "Net neutrality rules get published -- let the lawsuits begin". CNET. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
  60. ↑ Federal Communications Commission (April 13, 2015). "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet - A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/13/2015". Federal Register. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
  61. ↑ Stimson, Leslie (6 November 2013). "IBiquity Illuminates License Fees". Radio World. Retrieved 11 November 2013.
  62. ↑ Greer, Clarke; Ferguson, Douglas (2008). "Factors Influencing the Adoption of HD Radio by Local Radio Station Managers". The International Journal on Media Management. doi:10.1080/14241270802426725. Retrieved 11 November 2013.
  63. ↑ McCullagh D (2008-11-07) Democratic win could herald wireless Net neutrality. CNET, viewed 2010-06-01.
  64. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (20 September 2013). "Verizon blocks Nexus 7 and will probably get away with it". Ars Technica. Retrieved 11 November 2013.
  65. ↑ "FCC's CIO started young". FCW.com. Retrieved May 2014.
  66. ↑ "FCC Names New CIO and Acting Director". FedScoop Magazine. Retrieved September 2013.
  67. ↑ "The Top 70 Most Social U.S. Federal Technology Pros On Twitter". huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved February 2014.
  68. ↑ "David Bray, CIO, Federal Communications Commission". FCC.gov. Retrieved February 2014.
  69. ↑ "Public Service Leadership and Civic Innovation in a Ubiquitous Internet Era". Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved November 2013.
  70. ↑ "Federal Communications Commission, Our Work". Federal Commissions Commission. Retrieved July 2013.
  71. ↑ "On the Importance of Communication". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved October 2013.
  72. ↑ Obar, Jonathan, A.; Schejter, A.M. (2010). "Inclusion or illusion? An analysis of the FCC’s". Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 54 (2): 212–227. doi:10.1080/08838151003735000.
  73. ↑ "Legal Websites and Information". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 3 March 2014.
  74. ↑ "Federal Communications Commission Record". University of North Texas Libraries. Retrieved 3 March 2014.
  75. ↑ 76.0 76.1 76.2 Moss, D.A.; Lackow, J.B. "Rethinking the role of history in law & economics: the case of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927 (working paper)".
  76. ↑ Mazzocco, D. "Radio’s New Deal: The NRA and U.S. Broadcasting, 1933–1935". Journal of Radio Studies 12 (1): 32–46. doi:10.1207/s15506843jrs1201_4.
  77. ↑ Risley, F. (1995). "A First Step: The FCC’s Investigation Into Newspaper Ownership of Radio Stations". Journal of Radio Studies 3: 118–129. doi:10.1080/19376529509361978.
  78. ↑ Slotten, H. (2000). Radio and Television Regulation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  79. ↑ Barrow, R (1957). "Network Broadcasting – The Report of the FCC Network Study Staff". Law and Contemporary Problems 22: 611–625.
  80. ↑ Minow, N (2003). "Television and the Public Interest". Federal Communications Law Journal 55: 395–406.
  81. ↑ Copps, M. "Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps dissenting" (PDF). Retrieved July 14, 2010.
  82. ↑ McConnell, B. "November 5, 2002". Broadcasting and Cable.
  83. ↑ Editorial (December 9, 2002). "Onward to Richmond". Broadcasting & Cable.
  84. ↑ FCC Ends Long Fight, Will Move to Southwest D.C. The Washington Post. January 24, 1996. Financial F01. Retrieved 5 March 2010.

    Further reading

    External links

    Wikimedia Commons has media related to U.S. Federal Communications Commission.