Atop Commissioners’ Wish List: New Broadband Rules Through Act Rewrite
Las Vegas -- If Congress goes through with the expected rewrite of the Telecom Act, the FCC’s top priority should be for a clear definition and regulatory framework for advanced services, said 3 FCC commissioners speaking here Wed. “The biggest challenge at the FCC is dealing with new technologies that are absent from the Telecom Act, trying to create a regulatory environment that assures investment certainty,” FCC Comr. Abernathy told the audience at USTA’s conference. She and Comrs. Martin and Adelstein said it was difficult dealing with the current law’s separate regulatory regimes based on types of companies and technologies, with none of the choices ideally suited to converging broadband technology. New broadband rules would be “nirvana,” Abernathy told reporters after the speeches.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
A number of countries in Europe are moving away from this “regulatory silo” approach, instead basing regulation on “services, functions and features” with the view it will cause less arbitrage, she said. Telecom law is still based on years of economic and price regulation while regulators now are focused on social policy, she said. “The situation we find ourselves in has companies subject to varying degrees of regulation,” depending on the technology they use, “which creates arbitrage and irrational business plans.” She said the agency is “trying to rationalize our regulations as much as possible” and there’s “a lot we can do.” But she added, “Everyone would be better off if we can get new legislation to recognize the brand new world.”
However, Abernathy and the other govt. speakers emphasized they don’t intend to delay broadband proceedings because a clearer law may be coming. “It would be irresponsible for the FCC to take a wait-and-see attitude” because new technology is quickly being rolled out and business plans are being developed, she said during a press briefing after her appearance. “We're hopeful we will see a rewrite, but if not we will try to create as much certainty as we can,” she said. “It’s important we're prudent in how we talk” about Telecom Act reform, said NTIA Dir. Michael Gallagher, who also addressed the conference. The Administration doesn’t want to “disincent” technology development with “what could be a 10-year effort,” he said, noting the last rewrite took 12 years. Policy-makers don’t want to see the industry “scared off,” Gallagher said: “The Administration expects the Commission to make progress with the rules at hand.”
Asked at the press briefing whether current law places limits on the FCC’s goals, Abernathy said “an important point is that investments are being made, it’s just there’s a greater risk.” That’s why “it’s important for the Commission to still do all it can do,” Comr. Martin told reporters. Asked whether the Commission is moving fast enough on VoIP, Martin said VoIP was only one application on broadband and he would like to see more progress on broadband as a whole through action on the pending proceeding to classify IP services.
Asked by USTA Pres. Walter McCormick during the conference session to list the most important universal service reforms needed, Comr. Adelstein said clarification that universal service isn’t meant to fund competition but to make sure there are networks in all parts of the country. One way to do that is the benchmarks proposal that’s been discussed among state regulators and rural ILECs, he said. Under that plan, universal service funding to competitors would be based on population density and cost of providing service. Benchmarks acknowledge “there are areas where there is no useful purpose to have universal service for 2nd providers,” Adelstein said. He said the cost structure for universal service also needs to be clarified, particularly the practice of basing subsidies to competitive companies on the costs of the incumbent rural ILECs they compete against: “Why, if Congress intended money for network builders, give the money to providers based on someone else’s cost?”
Martin said he felt the Commission hadn’t done enough to “stabilize” the universal service regime. “Most important is changing the mindset that universal service is a means of creating competition,” Martin said. “Universal service is not about competition; it’s about assuring networks are built where otherwise it would be too costly to build them.” Asked about jurisdictional issues Congress is expected to consider, Abernathy said some competitors are regulated nationwide, some both nationwide and by states. Standardizing jurisdiction would drive down costs, she said.
Asked what they would want from industry, Gallagher said “information,” because the government can’t possibly know about every innovation and every new technological development in the industry. In addition, “consensus” is necessary, he said. The industry can help by prioritizing, said Martin. Adelstein said it’s immensely helpful “when industry can come together” to offer joint plans as happened with intercarrier compensation. Abernathy said in the TRO remand, for example, it’s “tremendously helpful when parties come in and give us ideas about responding to the court’s remand. You know more about your industry than we do.”