FCC commissioner outlines communication policy

The sounds of change echoed through the Moot Court Room yesterday afternoon. In an address to students and the public, the commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, Kathleen Q. Abernathy, outlined broad policy statements that affect every phone-using, television-viewing American. \nAbernathy, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in May 2001, outlined the guiding principles of her role during a time of rapid and important policy changes regarding broadband, as well as TV station and newspaper ownership. She also defined what the FCC's mission is and how it will exercise its power.\nAbernathy's address precedes the publication of an article stating her principles on on many issues in the Federal Communications Law Journal. The March issue of the journal, which is published at IU, will be released in a week.\nKaren Klein, a second year associate with the Journal, said Abernathy's speech is part of the tradition of FCC commissioners speaking at IU. Last year, FCC Commissioner Harold Furchgott-Roth spoke at IU.\n"Abernathy is here to orally present her policy statement, 'My View from the Doorstep of FCC Change,' in the Journal," Klein said. "It's concerned with the major issues with telecommunications." \nThe FCC has vast regulatory powers over modes of communication, including wireless communication, telecommunication, broadcast networks, and media ownership.\nTom Brummett, editor in chief of the FCLJ, said Abernathy's policies have far-reaching implications.\n"Her policies can have millions of dollars in impact," he said.\nAbernathy, in her address, said what she believed were the principles on which the FCC should operate. She asserts Congress sets the priorities of the FCC, and the agency has the responsibility to follow those priorities. Abernathy also said a free market makes better choices for the public than FCC regulatory action.\n"Policy should only correct market failures," she said. \nAbernathy stated the FCC should have fewer and more streamlined regulations that are rigorously enforced.\n"Consumers are better served by the government when there are fewer rules and greater enforcement than prescriptive regulations," she said. "My goal is to assure that FCC regulations are streamlined and clear, with consistent enforcement."\nAbernathy also said the FCC can never achieve the knowledge base of the rapid changes that impact the firms it regulates. The FCC should be "humble about what it knows" and reluctant to intervene in emerging markets.\nShe believes the government should not regulate markets that it does not understand, pointing to the example of wireless communications.\n"It is extremely difficult to predict the twists and turns of the market," she said. "The FCC sold PCS (alternative to cellular) rights divided into 493 regions. We did not anticipate the growth of national providers."\nCurrently an issue plaguing the FCC is cross-ownership of both broadcasting stations and newspapers. \nCurrent FCC policy prohibits any corporation from owning more than 35 percent of the television stations in any market. It also prevents common ownership of a daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market.\nAbernathy said she wishes to see the market determine who owns the stations. However, Abernathy said the FCC is examining whether corporate conglomeration will decrease the number of differing opinions in the media. \n"The question is whether diversity of opinions is harmed," Abernathy said. "If we don't have hard evidence to back up that claim then there is no reason to prevent cross-ownership."\nIf hard evidence does prove that diversity of ideas is limited, the agency may reinstate ownership caps. \nBrummett said that Abernathy's policies will have wide-ranging implications in the media industry. However, the changes will mostly affect urban markets such as Detroit, Chicago, New York and Dallas.\n"This removes one of the few roadblocks that are left preventing massive conglomeration," he said. "Pretty soon everything will be owned by two or three companies."\nThe issue is currently being debated in the Senate and the courts. A Feb. 25 federal appeals court decision struck down ownership caps that limit the amount of people one broadcast company can reach within a given area.