Federal Communications Commission
- FCC Jurisdiction
- - Ancillary Jurisdiction
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Admin Procedure Act
- Congress 101
- Merger Review
- - AT&T History
- - - Antitrust
- - - Industry : AT&T
- - CPE Carterfone
- - ILECs
- - BOCs
- Universal Service
- - Computer Inquiries
- - Info Services
- Common Carrier
- Comm Act 34
- Telecom Act 96
- FCC Chairs & Commissioners
- - Communications Act
- - Telecom Act
- - Hush a Phone
- - Computer Inquiries
- - Digital Tornado 1997
- - Steven Report 1998
- - Broadband
- - Universal Service
- - VoIP
- - Mergers
- - Network Neutrality
The Federal Communications Commission is an independent federal agency established pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 (see early FCC history). Section 1 of the Act sets forth the authority for the creation of the FCC, stating,For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission'', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.This is very broad authority. This section grants jurisdiction to the FCC over all interstate radio and wireline communications, which pretty much covers everything. You should also notice that this initial language has universal service language built right into it, setting forth the driving policy of making available to all people an efficient communications service.
Beyond this broad authority, the Act proceeds to also set for specific areas of responsibilities for the FCC. Title II of the Act regulates telecommunications common carriers, otherwise known as the public telephone companies. Title VI of the Act regulates cable service. Title III of the Act regulates wireless service. These different sections of the Act are ultimately reflected in different Bureaus within the Commission. At the top of the FCC is the Commission of 5 commissioners. Below the commissioners are the Mass Media Bureau, the Common Carrier Bureau, the Cable Services Bureau, the International Bureau, and the Wireless Bureau. In recent times the FCC has begun a restructuring effort, adding an Enforcement Bureau and a Consumer Information Bureau. No one office within the FCC has responsibility specifically over Internet or online communications issues.
Unlike other federal agencies, the FCC is an "independent" agency. It does not answer to the President of the United States. There is no chair on the President's cabinet for the FCC and the FCC Chairman does not serve at the will of the President. Instead, the FCC is answerable to the U.S. Congress - in other words, the FCC has hundreds of bosses instead of just one. The President, when he needs to attend to communications policy, works through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration within the Department of Commerce - those are the good folks who have had the responsibility of privatizing the Internet's Domain Name System.
Since the FCC answers to Congress, this means that it would likely answer directly to specific Congressional committees (everything in Congress is done in committees). And this is certainly true. The FCC is most responsive to the Commerce Committees of the House and the Senate. These committees are tremendously influential over communications policy and have, in recent times, held hearings on the AOL Time Warner merger, Internet DDOS, Internet Gambling, the deployment of high speed Internet, and the safety of Children on the Internet.
See FCC Chair & Commissioners.
Delegated Authority: Bureaus and Offices
The Commission has delegated authority to Bureaus and Offices. 47 U.S.C. § 155(b)&(c). Smaller matters are handled by Bureaus or Divisions. For example, enforcement fines under a certain dollar threshold do not have to be presented to the full Commission and can be issued by the Enforcement Bureau. For the really big crimes with million dollar fines, the full Commission must vote and approve the action. SLAMMING fines (involuntarily switching customers from one long distance carrier to another) have been a recent example of this. Historically, the division of work within the FCC tracks industry lines.
Originally, the FCC had three divisions: radio, telegraph, and telephone. [FCC First Report 1935] In 1950, the FCC was reorganized "to operate on functional instead of professional lines." [FCC Report 1959 at 19] This resulted in the creation of the Field Engineering and Monitoring Bureau, the Common Carrier Bureau (with a telephone division and a telegraph division) (today known as the Wireline Competition Bureau), Safety and Special Radio Service Bureau (resurrected as the Public Safety Bureau), and the Broadcast Bureau (today known as the Media Bureau). There was also an Office of Chief Engineer (today known as the Office of Engineering and Technology), Office of Opinions and Reviews (an office like this known as the Office of Plans and Policy was eliminated), Office of General Counsel, and Office of the Secretary. This reorganization placed both electronic communications carriers under the authority of the same office for the first time. Since that time, FCC Chairs on a regular "reform" the organization of the FCC and rearrange the deckchairs. This has created an asymmetry, with some B/Os tracking communications medium and other B/Os tracking professional expertise. The current trend has been to segregate professional expertise into separate offices, creating one office for economists, another office for engineers, and another for lawyers.
Decision Making Process
The FCC, like all federal agencies, is under the Administrative Procedure Act. This ensures that the process before the FCC, as with all federal agencies, is democratic. When making a policy decision, a federal agency must give adequate notice that it is contemplating that decision and an opportunity for the public to comment on how the decision should be made. Any interested party can file comments in these proceedings and comments can take any form (as long as they have the proceeding docket number clearly identified on them). Indeed, the FCC now has an online electronic form where interested parties can come and, with no more difficulty than writing an e-mail, fire off comments on any open proceeding. When deciding, a federal agency is required to consider all comments provided and give a rational explanation why it either accepted or rejected those views.
At the FCC there are two typical ways in which any policy decision making process starts: the FCC can initiate a proceeding or an interested party can initiate a proceeding. 47 CFR 1.411
When an interested party wants to initiate a proceeding, believing that something is broke and needs fixin', the interested party can petition the FCC. The FCC then can place the petition out for public comment. This situation can occur where old rules were originally satisfactory but something has changed to bring new questions. An example of was IVI's petition for a declaratory ruling that ISPs should be permitted to have access to leased access cable channels. The FCC accepted that petition and initiated a comment gathering period discussed in more detail below .
FCC Initiated Proceedings
The second way to start a proceeding is for the FCC to initiate it. In recent history, the FCC has been extremely active initiating policy decisions. The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 meant that the FCC was tasked with implementing the new law. Where the Act is clear, there may be no need for the FCC to draw up rules implementing the Act. But where the Act gave a mandate but left the details to be clarified, the FCC might initiate a rulemaking proceeding to work out the details. A good example of this is the Universal Service program, set forth in section 254 of the Communications Act. This gave the FCC broad authority to set up a program to subsidize Internet access to schools and libraries, but did not specify what should be included in the subsidy program or the size of the program. The FCC initiated an extensive rulemaking proceeding to determine which facilities, equipment, and services qualified under the program.
Notice of Inquiry
There are two ways that an agency can initiate a proceeding; it can propose a rule or it can take a step back and initiate an inquiry. The latter is a Notice of Inquiry (NOI). This is a situation where the agency recognizes that it is dealing with an issue of significant public policy, but perhaps believes that there has been insufficient data or discussion gathered on the issue to formulate a policy at this time. An example of this was the Section 255 NOI for IP telephony. In an NOI, the agency has not given APA notice of a pending decision and cannot conclude the proceeding with a decision. At the end of an NOI proceeding, the agency may elect to (1) propose a rule if appropriate or (2) issue a report with the information it gathered.
47 CFR § 1.430 Proceedings on a notice of inquiry.
The provisions of this subpart also govern proceedings commenced by issuing a ``Notice of Inquiry,'' except that such proceedings do not result in the adoption of rules, and Notices of Inquiry are not required to be published in the Federal Register. [51 FR 7445, Mar. 4, 1986]
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The second way for the FCC to initiate a proceeding is to propose a new regulation. 47 CFR s 1.412. It need not start with an NOI; it can start directly with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). In an NPRM, the FCC will explain a policy issue and then set forth a proposed resolution of that issues, providing notice of its proposed rule to guide future action.
The FCC then gives a deadline for comments to be filed before the FCC; there is usually a subsequent period in which parties can reply to the arguments made in the initial round of comments. All comments are publicly available for all parties to review and comment on (see the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System where comments can be filed and viewed using the docket number of the proceeding). 47 CFR s 1.415 Comments and Replies
An example of a rulemaking is Computer III. Computer II had set forth restrictions on the ability of Bell Telephone Operating Companies (BOCs) to enter the ISP market. If BOCs wanted to become ISPs, they had to do it through a fully separate corporate subsidiary. Ultimately, the FCC concluded that this created unnecessary inefficiencies. Therefore, the FCC released Computer III where it addressed these inefficiencies by creating a system of nonstructural safeguards that would permit BOCs to enter the playing field of ISPs without a separate corporate affiliate, but not engage in anticompetitive behavior.
"When the FCC proposes new rules, a time period is established for the public to comment on these proposed rules. Anyone can file comments. You don’t need to be an attorney or to hire an attorney. Each of the Commission’s documents containing proposed rules clearly details the specific dates, deadlines and locations for filing comments and reply comments.
"Comments from the public play an important part in Commission decisions because they tell us what people think about our proposals and why they support or oppose them.
"After initial comments are filed, there is an additional period for responding to the first set of comments. During this second phase, you can file reply comments. People file reply comments to support or disagree with what others have said in their initial comments.
"How Do I File Comments with the Commission?
"Comments may be filed with the Commission electronically or on paper. If you have access to the Internet, we encourage you to file your comments electronically. It’s fast and it will save you the cost of postage or messenger fees and the trouble of making the multiple copies required for comments filed on paper.
"Filing Comments Electronically
"You can file documents with the FCC for all docketed and rulemaking proceedings through our Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) . ECFS accepts documents 24 hours a day with a midnight filing deadline. The official receipt for electronic filings will reflect Monday through Friday dates, except legal holidays.
. . . . . " About the FCC, FCC CGB.
Comments About Comments
In submitting comments to a federal regulatory agency, you may wish to keep a few things in mind:
- Be Succinct; Be Articulate: Frequently agency staff must read and summarize hundreds or thousands of comments. After a while, these comments just blur. Make it easy on staff so that they can get your point. Do not ramble on and on. Be succinct and be articulate. Make your argument in a nice and tight form, and make sure you make your point clearly.
- Make Your Point Jump Out: Many petitioners will make their points in bold subtitle text, and then elaborate.
- Be Clear What You Want: Many a legal document has created beautiful arguments about an issue, but then failed to declare what the petitioner wants. What relief do you seek? If you persuade your reader, what would you like them to do. You would be surprised how often this is over looked.
- Provide a Summary: If you comments are long, provide a summary. You may wish to provide both an "executive summary" and short statements summarizing your points.. As wonderful as your 300 page comments may be, some decision makers will only see a staff prepared summary. It can be the summary that you crafted - or it can be the summary of some staff person who half understands what you are talking about.
- Provide Evidence: Administrative law is less formal and merely speculation is accepted. But to make a truly persuasive argument, include as much evidence as possible. A hard fact goes far in countering rhetoric (it also sets up your appeal).
- Provide Consensus: One of the most powerful tools in this process is consensus of interested parties. If you can get parties to agree on points, and make the work of the agency easier, that can be well received.
- Educate, Dont Berate: This is one of those self fulfilling prophesies - if you scream at the government like they are your enemy, then they probably wont be your friend. If you come in with a positive attitude, as perhaps someone on the front line of this regulatory policy who is impacted by it greatly, and you are hear to educate staff about how this policy can best work - you may find a very positive reaction.
- Dont Protect Your Document: This may not occur to you - agency staff will set on your argument like hungry ferrets, summarizing and digesting it, and reporting the results to working groups. This is frequently achieved by our friend "Cut and Paste." If you copy-protect your document, you make it hard for the staff to work with it. And if you make it hard for the staff to work with your 40 page comment, and they have 300 more comments to read, what do you think will happen?
- Be Timely: Get your comments in by the deadline. But after the deadline passes, as noted in the section about ex partes, it doesn't mean the show is over. See if the agency still accepts feedback - see if you need to respond to some of the arguments made by some of the other parties - or if you might be able to hammer out consensus positions with them, even after the deadline.
- Review Previous Comments: There are plenty of comments online now. Review a few as models and see what old-hacks are doing.
- Follow Up: Your comments will get read. But they may only get read by lower staff. Back up your effort by setting up a visit with staff to explain your position and answer questions.
- Dont Burn Bridges: If you lose, all it means is that you lost. In a democracy, someone almost always loses - frequently lots of people lose. That is part of living in a democracy, everyone makes their argument, and hopefully the best argument wins - hopefully. Losing doesn't mean democracy does work; it just means you lost. Democracy means that when you lose, you have another day to challenge the political process, perhaps by voting those bums out of office.
Ex Parte (Comments and Contact after the comment period is closed)
After the comment period is closed but before a decision has been made by the FCC, an interested party can still make its views knows. All a party has to do is follow the FCC's ex parte rules, which sounds a lot harder than it is. Just think about what is fair and democratic. If one party comes and makes an argument to the FCC, all of the other parties would want to know about that and have a chance to respond. And that is exactly what the rules permit. You can usually come during this period and argue anything that you want in any way that you want - you simply must file a summary of your presentation with the Secretary of the FCC for inclusion in the record of that proceeding.
"APA places no restriction on "off-the record" or "ex parte" communication between agency decision makers and other persons during informal rulemaking. [5 U.S.C. § 557(d)(1)] However, FCC has rules about such contacts to protect the fairness of its proceedings by providing an assurance that FCC decisions are not influenced by off-the-record communications between decision makers and others. The rules also give FCC the flexibility to obtain the information it needs for making decisions. Under its ex parte rules, FCC generally classifies its rulemaking proceedings as "permit-but-disclose," meaning that outside parties are allowed to present information to FCC either in writing or in person, but are required to disclose such communications in the public record. [47 CFR § 1.1206(a)(1)] The rules require a person making an oral ex parte presentation that includes data or arguments not already reflected in that person's other filings to submit a disclosure to the record summarizing the new data and arguments. The rules state that the summary should generally be "more than a one or two sentence description" and not just a listing of the subjects discussed. [47 CFR § 1.1206(b)(2)] When there is ambiguity about whether data or arguments are already in the public record, FCC encourages parties to briefly summarize the matters discussed at a meeting. FCC's ex parte rules also establish the Sunshine Period, which begins when FCC releases the Sunshine Agenda of items scheduled for a vote at a public meeting and ends when those items are released to the public after the vote or are removed from the agenda before the meeting. During the Sunshine Period, the public may not contact the agency to discuss any matters that appear on the Sunshine Agenda unless there is a specific exemption (27For example, there is an exemption for other federal agencies, Members of Congress, or congressional staff under certain conditions. 47 CFR § 1.1203(a)). The Sunshine Period does not apply to items that are voted on by circulation." [GAO-07-1046, p 11]
- Worst Ex Parte Ever: I Gloat Over Latest D.C. Cir. Case on a Procedural Point, Tales from the Sausage Factory 5/6/2008
Timeline to Act
Generally there is no set timeline for when the FCC must act on a proceeding. The ACTA Petition - the very first VoIP proceeding - languished for years. The one exception is Sec. 10 Forbearance Petitions. [47 USC 160] Carriers can petition the FCC for Forbearance from a few title II regulations. The FCC must act on these petitions within one year - unless of course the FCC grants itself an extension.
"The Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (Sunshine Act). [5 U.S.C. § 552(b)] This act requires federal agencies headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members, such as FCC, to hold regular public meetings with sufficient public notice that the meeting will take place. The agency must release the meeting's agenda, known as the Sunshine Agenda, no later than 1 week before the meeting. In addition, the act prohibits more than two of the five FCC commissioners from deliberating with one another to conduct agency business outside the context of the public meeting." - FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information, GAO-07-1046, p. 10 (Sept 2007)
A number of recent FCC Commissioners, such as Ch. Copps and Ch. Powell, have asked that the Sunshine Act be revised so that they may meet and deliberate in private.
When the FCC has considered all the filed comments and all of the ex parte presentations, it can than issue an order setting forth the final rule. The FCC must provide a rational explanation why it accepted or rejected different parties' views. If the parties are satisfied, the rule will guide FCC action and be enforced by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau.
The Order may be voted on in an Open FCC Meeting or it may be voted on without a meeting. The Orders come is a few different versions: (1) Reports and Orders, (2) Orders, and (3) Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Order must comply with the APA and present a rationale explanation why the FCC accepted or rejected each comment and argument introduced into the proceeding before it. As a result, most Orders are lengthy documents that (a) explain what issue is before the FCC, (b) summarize all arguments and comments (c) discuss all arguments and comments, and (d) conclude with what decision the FCC will take.
Normally proceedings are handled by specific bureaus. The bureau staff will review the entire proceeding, and draw up a draft order. The draft order is then place on "circulation" before the five Commissioners and their staff. During "circulation" the draft order may be revised in response to questions and concerns of the Commissioners, and in order for the Commission to achieve a majority vote."Three weeks before the commission considers an item at a public meeting, the chairman’s office releases to FCC officials the draft version of the proposed rules the commission expects to vote on at the public meeting. These drafts are internal, nonpublic documents. FCC officials told us they do not release information to the public about what items the commission is planning to vote on at public meetings or items being circulated by the commission for adoption. FCC’s written rulemaking guidance states that such information is nonpublic and may not be disclosed in any format, including via paper, electronic, or oral means, unless the chairman authorizes its disclosure." [GAO-07-1046, p 15]
The Commissioners then vote the item, and the outcome of the proceeding is determined by majority vote."Once the commission adopts a rule, the originating bureau often makes technical corrections to it and may also make substantive changes. Each commissioner is given the final rule before it is released and can decide if the rule has undergone substantive changes. Any substantive changes are approved by the commissioners, and the rule goes through a final internal review before FCC releases the rule and submits it to the Federal Register for publication.36 FCC may adopt and release some rules on the same day, while other rules may require months of revision because the commission may vote on a particular issue or policy position and not the precise wording of the rule. When this occurs, the final wording of the rule is approved by all commissioners before the order is released." [GAO-07-1046, p 15]
It is conceivable that the parties are not satisfied - and the process frequently does not end here. The dissatisfied parties can relief before the FCC either by petitioning for reconsideration or clarification. 47 CFR s 1.429 "Stakeholders are allowed 30 days after a rule is published in the Federal Register to file a petition for reconsideration, although FCC usually has no required time frame for acting on such a petition." [GAO-07-1046, p 17] If the FCC grants the petition, there will be a new round of comments that the FCC will have to consider. The FCC can also determine that the petition essentially argues nothing new, covering old ground, and therefore deny the petition.
Dissatisfied parties can also appeal decisions of the FCC in federal court. As you move up the appeal ladder, however, your grounds for appeal become narrower and narrower. In federal court, a dissatisfied party cannot just argue that it is bad policy - an argument which can be persuasive down before the FCC. In federal court, a dissatisfied party is likely to argue that the decision of the FCC was unconstitutional, violates the APA, or violates the Communication Act. Constitutional claims are typically First Amendment issues; perhaps the most famous was Pacifica v. FCC in which the FCC fined Pacifica radio for playing George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine.
When a dissatisfied party argues that a decision was irrational, this is based on the Administrative Procedure Act, requiring the FCC to consider all comments and give a rational explanation of its decision. As long as the federal agency can give a rational explanation of its decision, a federal court will give it discretion, making this very hard grounds to win on.
Finally, a dissatisfied party can argue that a decision does not comport with the Communications Act itself. This is typically an argument that a federal agency is taking an action that is not within its jurisdiction. Here, hypothetically, a federal court might say that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate organic mushrooms.
"An appeals court may uphold, vacate (hold unlawful or set aside), or remand an FCC rule (send it back to the agency for further consideration) entirely or in part, which may lead the commission to take additional action on the rulemaking, such as issuing a new version of the rule to address the court’s concerns." [GAO-07-1046, p 17]
After federal court, if you are still dissatisfied, you can appeal your case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court usually has discretion whether or not it will listen to your case in the first place (the Communications Decency Act was one of those rare laws where Congress gave the Supreme Court no discretion - it would have to hear any constitutional challenge to the CDA). Appeals to the Supreme Court are rare, but when they occur, they have the potential for dramatic implications in communications policy.
When all is said and done, and we have a rule, then the issues move out of the policy offices of the FCC, across the hall, and into the enforcement offices.
HOW DO I KNOW WHAT ISSUES ARE BEFORE THE FCC
There are a number of ways of knowing what issues are before the FCC. The official FCC mechanism of notice is the Daily Digest, a free daily e-newsletter providing information on all of the actions taken by the FCC in the last 24 hours. Of course, in order to understand what the Daily Digest is saying you might want to take your enigma deciphering device out of moth balls.
Many trade associations and public interest groups track the activity of the FCC and other federal agencies. These groups will frequently keep their members apprised of the latest developments and encourage your input or participation.
- Wireless Bureau How to File Comments with the FCC
- How to Tell Your NOI's from Your NPRM's [ text | WordPerfect ]
- Now It's Your Turn: How to Comment [ text | WordPerfect ]
- File Comments with the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System
- FCC Search for Filed Comments
- FCC's Ex parte Rules
- Daily Digest on Listserver
- About the FCC
- Submitting Information to the FCC Old
- FCC Commissioners 1934 to the Present, FCC
- Sunshine Act : Open Meetings 5 USC 552b
- Sunshine Act
- "The FCC announces open meetings seven days in advance under the heading "Sunshine Notice" in the Daily Digest. The Notice is subsequently published in the Federal Register. Each Sunshine Notice contains an agenda of the topics to be discussed at the upcoming meeting. " About the FCC
- 47 CFR 1.1203
- Where to Begin the Paper Chase [ text version | WordPerfect version]
- Benton Foundation's "Guide to the Paper Chase at the Federal Communications Commission"
- Making The FCC Your Business, ISP Planet 06/01/01
- Rulemaking ad agency procedures are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC s 500 et seq. Key sections are § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings; § 552a. Records about individuals; § 552b. Open meetings; § 553. Rule making. Most agencies will have implemented this law with their own regulations detailing how they as an agency comply. One copy of the APA.
- Freedom of Information Act
The reality is that the FCC does not operate under one law - rather, the FCC operates under several laws that have been "mushed" (that is a technical legal term) together. The Communications Act of 1934 was not some much an innovative new law as a consolidation of several existing but separate laws. At times, these different laws are at tension, offering different visions of communications regulation. One of the classic tensions of the current day is the two different definitions of "telecommunications service" offered up by title II of the Communications Act and by the CALEA authority.
- Post Roads Act of 1866
- Interstate Commerce Act
- Mann Elkins Act of 1910
- Radio Act of 1927
- Communications Act of 1934
- The Communications Satellite Act of 1962
- Cable Act of 1984
- Cable Act of 1992
- Telecommunications Act of 1996
FCC Docket 1: Investigation of the Telephone Industry in the United States (1939) (aka Walker Report)
- "Western Electric overcharged the BOCs for equipment. This inflated the rate base and cost AT&T customers an estimated $51m per year;
- "AT&T's accounting and depreciation practices were variable and erratic, and also resulted in a higher rate base, and
- "The AT&T licensing fee charged to operating companies was arbitrary, since it was not based on the cost or value of services provided to the BOCs by AT&T." -- Sterling, Bernt, Weiss, Shaping American Telecommunications, p. 107 (2006)
Records of the Federal Communications Commission, National Archive
- 1940: FCC National Defense Operations Section (aka Radio Intelligence Division) established
- 1941: FCC Foreign Broadcast Monitoring Service established
- 1942: FCC Interceptor Section and Security Section established
- FCC Silver Anniversary Report for the Fiscal Year 1959 [FCC Report 1959]
- First Annual Report of the Federal Communications Commission to the Congress of the United States for the Fiscal Year 1935 (1936) [FCC Report 1936]
EthicsBearing Gifts? FCC Protocol for Media Professionals by Erwin G. Krasnow, David R. Siddall and Michael D. Berg
- Brad Bernthal, Colorado Law School, Silicon Flatirons Center , What the Advocate's Playbook Reveals about FCC Institutional Tendencies In an Innovation Age TPRC 2010
- Phil Weiser, Institutional Design, FCC Reform, and the Hidden Side of the Administrative State, __ Administrative Law Review __ (2009).
- Fritz Messere, Analysis of the Federal Communications Commission
- Chicagoans Talk Broadband & Small Business with FCC, Next Gen Web 12/22/2009
- House Hearing Will Show FCC's Character, PK 9/17/2009
- Genachowski, Man Up! And Silicon Valley, Wake Up!, Gigaom 8/9/201
- Doug Sicker Rejoins FCC as Chief Technologist, Spectrum Talks 7/7/201
- Kevin Martin Pops Up Again, And Surprise, Surprise, He's Going Against A Cable Company, Techdirt 5/5/2010
- Former FCC Boss Kevin Martin Pretends He Fought For Open Access - A little faux consumer advocate revisionist history...., dslreports 3/12/2010
- Reform Comes Slowly at the FCC, Internet News 3/9/2010
- Can These Numbers Be Right? FCC Paperwork Nightmare = 57 Million "Burden Hours"!, PFF 3/9/2010
- Whoops! F.C.C. Chairman Spams Facebook Friends, NYT 1/5/2010
- FCC Boss Spams Facebook Friends With Make Money Now Scam, Techdirt 1/5/2010
- FCC Official Blasts Social Media 'Smear Campaign', Internet News 12/15/2009
- Should an Independent Regulatory Agency Head Be Visiting the White House This Often?, Tech Lib Front 12/1/2009
- 'Data Driven' FCC Still Using Ancient Data? - Science is hard., dslreports 11/24/2009
- Will the FCC Censor Its Own MySpace Page?, Tech Lib Front 11/13/2009
- A Chat with FCC Chief Genachowski, MAP 10/29/2009
- FCC Speech Czar a Myth, FCC Threat to Speech is Real, Tech Lib Front 9/24/2009
- Mark Lloyd and the Burden of Free Speech, CDT 9/22/2009
- More on the FCC's e-Government Transparency Efforts: ECFS, RSS, Social Media & Setting Priorities, TLF 9/15/2009
- The FCC Gets Serious On Outreach, PK 9/15/2009
- Japan: Happy birthday, Doraemon!, Global Voices 9/8/2009
- Revolving Door Between Lobbyists, FCC Continues - One FCC'er heads to cable, while think tanker heads to FCC..., dslreports 9/1/2009
- This Doesn't Bode Well: FCC Can't Figure Out Online Streaming For Its Own Meetings, Techdirt 9/1/2009
- Revolving Door Undermines FCC's Watchdog Role, Techdirt 9/18/2008
- Barbara Esbin, "The Law is Whatever the Nobles Do: Undue Process at the FCC", PFF 8/29/2008
- Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison Named Ranking Member on Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senate 7/31/2008
- The FCC: Current Structure and its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape, CDT 7/10/2008
- The FCC's Compromiser in Chief, Wash Post 7/10/2008
- FCC Boss May Be In Hot Water - Leaked memo suggests looming hearing for Martin, dslreports 5/1/2008
- Wu on Jump-Starting Tech Policy: Hire Experts, IP Democracy 4/3/2008
- Does America Need a Broadband Czar? - Well then how about an FCC with technical expertise?, dslreports 4/3/2008
- FCC SEEKS APPLICANTS FOR 2008 ENGINEER-IN-TRAINING PROGRAM., FCC 3/28/2008
- What Did the FCC Do About That?, Wash Post 3/17/2008
- GAO-08-125, Telecommunications: FCC Has Made Some Progress in the Management of Its Enforcement Program but Faces Limitations, and Additional Actions Are Needed, February 15, 2008, GAO 3/17/2008
- Martin Side Stepped Forced FCC Exit - As the cable industry faces potential lose-lose FCC situation, dslreports 3/13/2008
- North Carolina Democrats Go After FCC Chair Kevin Martin, Open Left 2/15/2008
- GAO-07-1046, Telecommunications: FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information, September 6, 2007, GAO 10/10/2007
- FCC accused of unfairly aiding some firms, LA Times 10/10/2007
- FCC Chief Plays Comedian - Nobody will mistake him for Steve Martin.., Broadband Reports 4/12/2007
- March 14 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing on "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission", House 3/8/2007
- Statement From Chairman Martin on His Confirmation., FCC 11/17/2006
- Senate Approves Nomination of FCC Chairman Martin, Senate 11/17/2006
- FCC cats rips off Doraemon, P2PNet 7/5/2006
- Robert M. McDowell Sworn in as FCC Commissioner., FCC 6/2/2006
- Senate Hold Delays McDowell's FCC Confirmation, Television Week 4/7/2006
- Lobbyist McDowell In FCC Post Hearings Thursday, Forbes 3/9/2006
- US Senate panel to consider FCC nominee March 9, Reuters 3/2/2006
- Senate To Weigh FCC Nominations In December, Telecomweb 11/22/2005
- FCC Moves Meeting, B&C 11/22/2005
- Abernathy Resignation Could Cause GOP Minority At FCC, Networking Pipeline 11/22/2005
- Republican Abernathy to Leave FCC, Wash Post 11/18/2005
- Statement of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy Announcing Her Departure From the FCC., FCC 11/18/2005
- A great pick for the FCC, Robertson County Time 11/15/2005
- Martin known as consensus builder, Free Press 11/1/2005
- FCC Distinguished Engineering Fellow, FCC 11/1/2005
- FCC Chairman Kevin Martin Ups Bohigian, B&C 10/21/2005
- FCC commissioners to meet public in Iowa City, Iowa City Press Citizen 9/30/2005
- Missing Commissioner Keeps FCC Idle On Some Issues, AdvancedIPpipeline 7/29/2005
- Report: FCC Nominees On The Way, Americas Network 7/29/2005
- Bush Aide, Tenn. Official Headed To FCC, National Journal 8/2/2005
- FCC May Consolidate Wireless Oversight, National Journal 8/2/2005
- Former U.S. regulator becomes deal maker, IHT 8/12/2005
- Former FCC Chairman To Join Investment Firm, Wash Post 8/12/2005
- FCC Vacancies Have Bevy Of Contenders National Journal Monday Aug 1
- New Front-Runner for Powell Seat Broadcasting & Cable June 3, 2005
- Possible FCC Nominee Comstock Withdraws, MSNBC 4/15/2005
- Shortest FCC Daily Digest in Years, FCC 3/22/2005
- Martin In at FCC, Others Pending, Wireless Week 3/18/2005
- Bush names Martin new FCC chairman, The Standard 3/18/2005
- Commissioner Martin Comments on Being Named Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission., FCC 3/18/2005
- Bush chooses Martin as next FCC chairman, CNET 3/18/2005
- ROBERT PEPPER NAMED ACTING CHIEF, OFFICE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING AND POLICY ANALYSIS: LINDA BLAIR RETURNS TO POSITION AS DEPUTY CHIEF, ENFORCEMENT BUREAU. News Release. News Media Contact: Meribeth McCarrick at 0654, email: v OSP, FCC 3/15/2005
- CHIEF OF FCC WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU ANNOUNCES RESIGNATION. News Release WTB. Contact Lauren . at 7944, email: . or Israel . at 7944, FCC 3/15/2005
- Powell Leaves FCC, Decries Uncivil America, Wash Post 3/11/2005
- Two Front-Runners Seen For Nomination To Lead FCC, Radio Ink 3/11/2005
- FCC: Mission Accomplished, CW 3/2/2005
- Time to retool the FCC for the public's interests, Seattle 3/2/2005
- Expect Delays but Not Major Changes as Powell Leaves FCC, Gartner 3/2/2005
- Congress Asks President For Tough New FCC Chairman, Topix 2/11/2005
- Martin Appears to Be Front Runner for FCC Chairman, Americas Network 2/1/2005
- Digital Divide Shortchanged During Powell's Term, DDN 2/1/2005
- Will anyone miss FCC's Powell?, Topix 2/1/2005
- Mixed legacy for FCC's Powell, CNET 2/1/2005
- Statement of FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell On Leaving the Commission, CNET 2/1/2005
- FCC Chief's Next Step? ; Some Say Michael Powell Eyes a Political Career, or Maybe a Federal Judgeship, Yellowbrix 10/5/2004
- Post-Election Changes Loom at FCC, Reuters 10/5/2004
- FCC nomination in limbo, Rapid city 10/5/2004
- The technologist who has Michael Powell's ear, CNET 9/30/2004
- FCC chief takes knocks from the left and the right, Mercury 8/4/03
- FCC Chairman's Star a Little Dimmer, Wash Post 7/25/03
- At FCC, gadget-freak Powell shapes digital future, Mercury 2/10/03
- Analysts: FCC Reform Needed, Internet News 2/7/03
- Jonathan S. Adelstein Sworn in as FCC Commissioner., FCC 12/4/02
- The Price of FCC Integrity: $15 Billion, AEI 9/10/01
- Critics: Internet Headed for Information Monopoly, Newsfactor 6/25/01
- Michael Powell: The Great Deregulator, Washtech 6/19/01
- Commissioner Abernathy Officially Appoints Monohan, Price and Tramont to her Staff. 6/15/01, FCC 6/15/01
- Commissioner Michael J. Copps Names Interim Staff. 6/11/01, FCC 6/15/01
- Bush's Tech Chasm, Standard 6/6/01
- Making The FCC Your Business, ISP Planet 06/01/01
- FCC, FTC Heads Get Senate Commerce Nod - Correction, Newsbytes 5/25/01
- FCC Chief Yellow Lights Telco Regulations, Washtech 5/23/01
- Telecom Competition Needs More Than Five Years - FCC Chair, Washtech 5/23/01
- FCC nominees back telecom deregulation, CNET 5/18/01
- Bush Nominates FCC Chief Powell To Serve Until Mid-2007, Washtech 5/1/01
- FCC's Ness To Leave Agency By June, Washtech 4/27/01
- President Bush Nominates Three FCC Commissioners, Newsbytes 4/7/01
- Bush Names 3 for FCC, Standard 4/7/01
- FCC Chairman Powell seeks to overhaul agency, NWFusion 3/30/01
- FCC Chairman Takes His Case To Congress, Washtech 3/30/01
- FCC regulators need updated education, Nando 3/12/01
- FCC considers tech training, USAToday 3/12/01
- Washington needs tech wizards, CNET 2/23/01
- The race to reform a slow FCC, CNET 2/23/01
- FCC's Ness to step down, CNET 2/12/01
- Lawmakers To Wait For Powell's Input On New FCC Reforms, Washtech 2/16/01
- FCC Chief Raises Eyebrow At 'Digital Divide', AP 2/7/01
- FCC takes market turn with Powell, CNET 2/7/01
- FCC Chief: Deregulation Will Grease Competition, TechWeb 2/7/01
- New FCC chief stresses deregulation, USAToday 2/7/01
- New FCC Chairman Favors A Non-Activist Approach, WashTech 2/7/01
- FCC's Powell Discusses TV, 'Digital Divide', WashTech 2/7/01
- GOP Leaders Vow Sweeping FCC, '96 Telecom Act Reforms, WashPost 2/2/01
- Commentary: The Telecom Act spurs little competition, CNET 2/2/01
- Dawn Of A New FCC?, Newsbytes 01/31/01
- Disney Executive to Help Run FCC WashTech , 1/26/01
- Bush Names Younger Powell to Take FCC Reins Jan 22 WashTech
- Bush names younger Powell to take FCC reins Jan 22 zdnet
- Colin Powell's son picked to head FCC Jan 22 cnet
- Kennard's FCC Legacy: Creative Compromise Jan 19 zdnet
- Kennard leaves FCC after era of "hands off" regulation Jan 19 cnet
- FCC's Kennard to join Aspen Institute Jan 12, 2001 mercurycenter
- Powell's son a candidate to head FCC, sources say Dec 1, 2000 cnet
- David Hughes, It's Time to Log On to the FCC, ISP Planet July 2004
- The Public Interest Standard: Is it too Indeterminate to be Constitutional?, SSRN 1/9/02