Officials question FCC policy
WASHINGTON – The nation’s chief telecommunications regulator stands accused of misrepresenting the facts while pushing through rules that will make it easier for big phone companies to get into cable television.
The policy change won approval by the Federal Communications Commission on a 3-2 vote Dec. 20. That angered local government officials who claim the agency overstepped its authority and now promise a legal challenge. The vote also drew the threat of a “legislative fix” from a powerful congressman.
The new rules are meant to spur more competition for cable television providers.
Consumer groups long have complained about rising cable rates and poor service, blaming the problems on a lack of competition.
But opponents of the FCC’s action contend the new rules will mean a loss of local oversight, fewer dollars for public and government access channels and the possibility of “cherry picking” by companies that choose to serve only the richest neighborhoods.
Supporters of the policy change have cited dozens of instances in which local governments have made unreasonable demands of new competitors, effectively blocking them.
It was one of those claims that raised the ire of David L. Smith, the city attorney in Tampa, Fla. He said the FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, made a “blatantly inaccurate allegation” about Tampa’s conduct during franchise negotiations with Verizon Communications Inc.
Martin was quizzing an agency employee during a commission meeting before casting his vote when he asked: “Is Verizon still required to film the tutoring classes for the math classes in Tampa, Florida, in order to get a franchise?”
Rosemary Harold, a deputy chief in the FCC’s Media Bureau, answered, “Yes, Mr. Chairman.”
Smith, who negotiated with Verizon in Tampa, says Martin’s allegation was neither in nor a condition of the franchise agreement. Martin’s characterization, the lawyer said, was “complete and abject fiction.”
In an interview Friday, Martin said he probably should not have used the word “still” but largely stood by his argument – that Tampa was making an unreasonable demand of Verizon. He said he had not responded to Smith’s letter, but would do so.
“These are difficult issues,” he said. “I think the commission is trying to find a balance between protecting the local communities’ interest but also making sure they are not effectively pre-empting the ability (of new companies) to get in and compete.”
The dispute raises a larger question about whether the agency should investigate specific allegations made by companies that stand to benefit from rules or simply assume that they are true.
Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat who voted against the changes, accused his agency of failing to “conduct any independent fact-finding” and said the FCC did not “attempt to verify the allegations made by parties who have a vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding.”
FCC spokeswoman Tamara Lipper said it would be “impossible for the commission to independently vet every single one of the millions of comments that inform our rule-making.”
In addition to dealing with angry local governments, the agency’s video franchise decision faces other challenges.
Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said through a spokeswoman that he believes the agency overstepped its authority.
Dingell, D-Mich., was chairman and played a central role in passing cable laws in 1984 and 1992 that the agency analyzed in making its decision.
Spokeswoman Jodi Seth said Dingell “does not believe that the law allows the FCC to drastically reduce the ability of a local government to protect its citizens.” She said Dingell plans to “review the FCC’s action in the course of the committee’s oversight this year. At that point, he may decide that a legislative fix is necessary.”