There is a need for legislative reform to unify the disparate regulations that govern the historically distinct types of telecommunications providers and technology platforms. However, in many areas, industry’s desire to capture this business for themselves and increase their profit margins drives the current push for legislative reforms in order to gain an edge over their new competitors, eliminate public interest obligations, and even prohibit additional entrants into the market.

Legislative Kaleidoscope

As early as 1927, people with vision knew that radio could be a blessing to everyone or a golden goose to commercial interests -- or even a cruel tool wielded by those in power to control popular opinion. The Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as the federal regulatory agency, forms the foundation of U.S. telecommunications law, and with its amendments, governs radio, telephone, broadcast television, cable, satellite television, and wireless communications. A fundamental principal of the Act is that communications and media licenses are granted to promote “the public convenience and necessity.” Thus the Act, its amendments, and FCC policies have contained numerous public interest obligations for commercial communications providers, such as universal service and interconnection for telephone providers; equal time for political candidates on TV and radio; set-aside of channel capacity for non-commercial and educational purposes; and broadcast television programming that includes coverage of local events and issues, airing opposing viewpoints, and children’s programming. Nevertheless, public interest obligations, such as the FCC’s fairness doctrine (see sidebar, "The End of the Fairness Doctrine") have seen considerable erosion over the last 30 years primarily due to the erroneous belief that the growing marketplace would preserve diversity of opinion and the public interest.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 promised a plethora of competitive choices for consumers through extensive deregulation. Results include a 59 percent average increase in cable rates, and accelerated consolidation of ownership. A report published by the Consumer’s Union and the Consumer Federation of America states,

The Act's failure is not because, as some have suggested, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was overly regulatory in seeking to create conditions ripe for competition. The fundamental problem is that the huge companies that dominate the telephone and cable TV industries prefer mergers and acquisitions to competition. They have refused to open their markets by dragging their feet in allowing competitors to interconnect, refusing to negotiate in good faith, litigating every nook and cranny of the law, and avoiding head-to-head competition like the plague. 1

What’s At Stake

There is a massive effort underway to increase deregulation and rewrite telecommunications laws. Will anti-public interest and anti-competitive trends continue with the current flurry of proposed legislative reform for the new telecommunications landscape? Or will we reassert our rights for telecommunications policies that first and foremost serve “the public convenience and necessity”?

The stakes are high and the potential impact on citizens great:

• Will we continue to have unfettered access to the internet?
• Will our city continue to receive fees for use of public right of ways?
• Will we be able to regulate the placement of cell towers in our neighborhoods?
• Will we be forced to buy expensive new digital televisions or receivers to receive over-the-air TV?
• Should all citizens have access to high-speed internet service?
• Will we finally have good, competitive choices in video services providers?
• Will first responders across the nation get additional spectrum to unify emergency communications and avoid mishaps such as those with hurricane Katrina and 9/11?
• Will consumers be able to purchase individual, unbundled services and at fair prices?

All of these questions are currently in play. Those of us interested in retaining part of the telecommunications landscape as electronic greenspace for the public benefit need to understand what's happening in Washington, in Indiana, in Indianapolis, and in the board rooms of the telecommunication giants, and we need to become active NOW. In the following section, and in upcoming issues of The Right-of-Way, we will examine these important issues starting with high-speed internet access.

This article, with a section on high speed internet issues, is the first in a series on 2005/2006 telecommunications legislative reform from the November/December 2005 issue of The Right of Way newsletter.

Jean Coughlin is a retired Indianapolis IT worker, and Andrea Price is Board President of Public Access of Indianapolis, Inc.

Go to "High Speed Internet Issues"

Additional Resources:

"The People's Guide to the Telecommunications Act of 2006," Community Media Review, Spring 2005

"The Clash of the High Tech Titans," National Journal's Insider Update: The Telecom Act, September 28, 2005

"Ideas of the Marketplace: A Guide to The 1996 Telecommunications Act," by Michael I. Meyerson, Federal Communication Law Journal, Volume 47, 1997

Telecom influence in Indiana by the Center for Public Integrity

Footnotes:

1 ”Lessons From the 1996 Telecommunications Act: Deregulation Before Meaningful Competition Spells Consumer Disaster,” Consumer’s Union and the Consumer Federation of America, February 2001