Benton RSS Feed

On November 16, 2006, the US Senate confirmed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin for a second term as commissioner and chairman. The new term is to end in 2011.

Since June 1, 2006, Chairman Martin has been working with a full, five-member Commission. He’s stated that he proud of his balanced approach to policy -- eliminating economic regulations while protecting consumers and preserving broader social goals -- in a bi-partisan, collegial manner. As Martin approaches a second term as FCC Chairman, what will be his policy approach on key issues like encouraging broadband penetration, Network Neutrality, and media ownership?

Below is a look at what Chairman Martin has told Congress and the public about his priorities at the Commission.

Broadband

Chairman Martin has identified encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure as one of his top priorities. He told Congress that high-speed Internet connections have grown 400% since he became a FCC Commissioner in 2001.

The goal here, as stated by President George Bush during the 2004 campaign season, is to “have universal affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.” As the 2007 deadline approaches, Chairman Martin has a daunting challenge on his hands. Nearly one-tenth of all US households have no broadband provider at all. And only 25 percent of U.S. adults in rural areas have broadband services in their homes, reflecting too few choices, unaffordable prices, and limited (or lack of) service availability.

As the deadlines quickly approaches, Chairman Martin appears to be trying to move the finish line. While commenting on a recently adopted order, Chairman Martin said, "By encouraging the development of new technologies… we can best achieve the President’s goal of universal broadband by the end of 2007.”

In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, fellow FCC Commissioner Michael Copps wrote that America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. He wrote that it is a lack of competition that is holding America back.

Chairman Martin believes that the US broadband market is competitive, however. He told Congress that because telephone companies and cable companies are trying to acquire new customers, they are actively competing in the broadband market today. These providers are competing aggressively against each other to win customers by offering price promotions, improved customer service, and new services. The increase in broadband speeds is just one reflection of this intense competition. He sited a recent Pew study that found the price of broadband service has also dropped in the past two years. Moreover, he said that the Commission supported policies that encourage multiple broadband competitors.

Commissioner Copps noted that the Commission seems to be trying to ignore that the country is falling behind other nations in broadband penetration. He highlighted that the FCC still defines broadband as 200 kilobits per second, assumes that if one person in a Zip code area has access to broadband then everyone does and fails to gather any data on pricing.

Chairman Martin plans to initiate a rulemaking that asks questions about how the Commission can obtain more specific information about the availability of broadband in specific geographic areas and how the FCC can combine its data with those collected at the state level or by other public sources. Martin also plans an inquiry into “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” In this Notice, the Commission would seek comment on all aspects of broadband availability, including price and bandwidth speeds. Between these two proceedings, Chairman Martin told Congress, “it is my hope that the Commission will solicit the information necessary to better assess the competitive progress in the broadband market.”

Network Neutrality

Network Neutrality (or Net Neutrality) was a hot button issue as Congress debated broad telecommunications reform in 2005 and 2006. With prospects of passing a major telecommunication bill dimmed for some months, the policy focus has returned to the FCC.

In August 2005, the FCC adopted a policy statement on the regulation of broadband networks. The statement includes four 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.
• Run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• Connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• Competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Collectively these four principles have come to be known as “Network Neutrality.” When adopting the principles, the FCC explicitly indicated that they are not enforceable rules. Net neutrality advocates argue that the FCC should be given new authority to enforce these principles and to preserve the fundamental openness that has been the hallmark of the Internet – largely based on these principles. They also argue for a fifth principle ensuring nondiscrimination. Broadband providers argue that there isn’t a problem that needs fixing, that the FCC already has sufficient authority, and that any new statutory language would amount to regulating the Internet.

During his confirmation, Chairman Martin assured senators that the Commission has authority to adopt broadband consumer protection requirements guided by the policy of the United States to promote the continued development of the Internet; preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet; and encourage the deployment of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by users of the Internet.

Chairman Martin was asked if he believes that Internet end-users should be entitled to receive service from each broadband access provider in a manner that does not discriminate in the carriage and treatment of Internet traffic based on the source, destination, or ownership of such traffic. His answer was noncommittal instead saying, “[N]etwork providers should have the ability to offer consumers different speeds of service and plans with different quality of service guarantees. Some consumers are willing to pay more for a faster speed or higher quality of service. I should also note that traffic prioritization already occurs today. For example, voice is prioritized over data traffic, and video is prioritized over other data traffic.”

Media Ownership

In July 2006, the FCC opened a new proceeding examining its rules governing media ownership. The proceeding is controversial in no small part because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus v. FCC stayed and remanded several media ownership rules that the Commission had adopted in 2003. Chairman Martin has acknowledged the importance of the proceeding: “The media touches almost every aspect of our lives. We are dependent upon it for our news, our information and our entertainment. Indeed, the opportunity to express diverse viewpoints lies at the heart of our democracy.”

Members of Congress and others have been highly critical of the FCC’s process in this proceeding. They note that the FCC has yet to conclude open proceedings examining the effects of media ownership consolidation on localism and diversity – nor has the Commission addressed specific concerns about the dearth of ownership of media outlets by minorities and women.

In August, the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council (MMTC) asked the FCC to withdraw its proposed review of media ownership rules and start again, saying it has failed to specifically address several key issues: 1) its "failure" to identify specific minority ownership proposals remanded by the Philadelphia Federal Appeals court; 2) failure to seek comment on what constitutes a socially or economically disadvantaged business; and 3) not spelling out a "central legal basis for minority ownership relief," which MMTC says should be preventing market entry barriers.

Additionally, the public still does not know 1) if the Commission will rule on all media ownership rules in concert, 2) who will conduct the independent studies or how they will be chosen, 3) which cities will host public forums on media consolidation, and 4) how or why research -- that supported preserving the media ownership rules -- was suppressed by the Commission.

At a recent public hearing in Los Angeles (CA) Martin stated, “It's important that the process be open and transparent.” He has committed to consider all the rules in concert as the Commission conducts hearings and independent studies and to “ensuring that the public is fully informed and has the opportunity to comment and actively participate in this proceeding.” During his confirmation, Chairman Martin outlined for Congress how other concerns will be addressed.

• The comments in the Commission’s localism proceeding will be incorporated into the current media ownership proceeding. Moreover, the FCC’s Media Bureau is preparing a summary of these comments.
• Martin said he has proposed to consolidate the diversity proceeding with its review of the media ownership rules in order to ensure full consideration of the diversity issue with the media ownership proceeding. In June 2004, the Commission sought comment on “constitutionally permissible ways to further the mandates… to identify and eliminate market entry barriers for small telecommunications businesses… and further opportunities in the allocation of spectrum-based services for small businesses and businesses owned by women and minorities.” And, at the request of petitioners, Martin has also proposed that the Commission request further comment more specifically on minority ownership issues.
• Chairman Martin also noted that Commission is seeking comment on the recommendations of the Diversity Federal Advisory Committee.
• Martin has promised that localism, diversity and minority ownership will be the focus of several independent studies the FCC will commission as well as topics for public hearings the FCC plans to hold around the country. The research on minority ownership, for example, is to examine levels of minority ownership of media. The study also will investigate potential barriers to entry for minority owners.

The FCC and Congress

As Chairman Martin addresses each of these issues, he will also be dealing with oversight from a Democratically-controlled Congress. As he moves forward, he may have to answer to Congressional inquiries on a number of fronts including: 1) Why has the US fallen behind in broadband penetration? 2) Why hasn’t the FCC opened a Net Neutrality rulemaking proceeding based on its adopted principles? and 3) Why was Commission-conducted media ownership research suppressed?