The FCC’s Relationship Status: It’s Complicated

Add to Briefcase
Bruce Gottlieb
Nov. 15, 2011, 4:30 p.m.

As the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s first term draws to a close, the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion and Con­gress are squar­ing off for a pre­dict­able tussle. The top­ic, as usu­al, is “agency re­form.”

Three years in­to a pres­id­en­tial term, es­pe­cially un­der a di­vided gov­ern­ment, the top­ic is al­most al­ways agency re­form. If Act 1 of a new chair­man­ship be­gins with ritu­al­ist­ic pledges (of­ten sin­cerely felt) to work across dif­fer­ences, Act 2 is com­posed of fierce and bruis­ing policy dis­agree­ments (the af­teref­fects of which are even more deeply felt).

And now, with an up­com­ing elec­tion and ma­jor per­son­nel changes loom­ing, comes Act 3: a meta-de­bate over how the agency makes de­cisions. It is more or less the policy equi­val­ent of a di­vorce pro­ceed­ing — the fi­nal hash­ing-out of griev­ances be­fore start­ing afresh.

Four years ago, Re­pub­lic­ans con­trolled the FCC and Demo­crats the Con­gress. Act 3 began with the House En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee an­noun­cing its in­ten­tion, at the end of 2007, to in­vest­ig­ate “an ap­par­ent break­down in an open and trans­par­ent reg­u­lat­ory pro­cess” at the FCC. It ended, a year later, with a fi­nal in­vest­ig­at­ive re­port whose 12-word title ef­fi­ciently sums up the ma­jor find­ings: “De­cep­tion and Dis­trust: The Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion un­der Chair­man Kev­in J. Mar­tin.”

Now, the Re­pub­lic­an-con­trolled com­mit­tee is go­ing one bet­ter. Earli­er this month, Com­mu­nic­a­tions and Tech­no­logy Sub­com­mit­tee Chair­man Greg Walden, R-Ore., along with Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., in­tro­duced a pro­cess-re­form bill that would amend the un­der­ly­ing law that au­thor­izes the FCC. It is sched­uled for markup on Wed­nes­day.

The ef­fort is clearly rooted in sub­stant­ive ob­jec­tions to re­cent FCC de­cisions, most not­ably net­work neut­ral­ity, the Com­cast mer­ger con­di­tions, and a be­lief that the agency is in gen­er­al too quick to reg­u­late.

But, sig­ni­fic­antly, the bill avoids sub­stant­ive is­sues and in­stead sets out strict pro­ced­ur­al re­quire­ments the FCC must meet be­fore it cre­ates any new rules, as well as tight­er stand­ards for mer­ger con­di­tions.

The prob­lem is that lack of pro­ced­ure is not what is wrong with the FCC. In­deed, the agency already has far more baroque pro­ced­ur­al re­quire­ments than any com­par­able private de­cision-mak­ing en­tity — or the Con­gress it­self, for that mat­ter (which shifts from fact-gath­er­ing to en­act­ing ac­tu­al laws at the pace it sees fit).

The basis for ex­ist­ing prac­tices is the Ad­min­is­trat­ive Pro­ced­ure Act, to which the FCC, like al­most all fed­er­al agen­cies, is already sub­ject.

Lay­er­ing new pro­ced­ur­al re­quire­ments on top of ex­ist­ing ones would ef­fect­ively halt the cre­ation of nearly any con­ten­tious new FCC rules — in oth­er words, achieve a res­ult more or less like what Texas Gov. Rick Perry had in mind for the Com­merce and Edu­ca­tion de­part­ments.

This is not to deny that good pro­ced­ures are crit­ic­al to cre­at­ing good policy. But no form­al pro­ced­ur­al rules, no mat­ter how strictly en­forced, can pre­vent bad de­cision-makers from mak­ing bad de­cisions.

So why are agen­cies and their con­gres­sion­al over­seers so locked in­to dis­cuss­ing pro­cess rather than sub­stance? One can­did ex­plan­a­tion comes from an ex­change that Rep. John Din­gell, D-Mich., had with the Re­pub­lic­an chair of the FCC in 2007 dur­ing an es­pe­cially con­ten­tious hear­ing. Din­gell, a fam­ous pro­cess hawk, ex­plained:

“I al­ways am in­ter­ested in the sub­stance, but I am very, very in­ter­ested in the pro­ced­ure be­cause my old daddy taught me a little les­son way back when I was young. He said, son, if you let me write the pro­ced­ure and you write the sub­stance, I will over­come you every time.” [ht­tps://­]

Lurk­ing in the back­ground here is an ac­know­ledg­ment of the un­easy, com­plic­ated re­la­tion­ship between ex­pert agen­cies like the FCC and the Con­gress that over­sees them.

On one hand, agen­cies are cre­ated be­cause they are uniquely cap­able of de­vel­op­ing ex­pert­ise in com­plex, spe­cial­ized areas like tech­no­logy, sci­ence, and eco­nom­ic ana­lys­is — much more than the Con­gress that cre­ates them and the judges who grade their home­work.

Against this back­ground, le­gis­lat­ors of both parties must be care­ful about too much second-guess­ing on the basis of sub­stance (though it hap­pens). It would be a bit like a pa­tient re­fus­ing to take medi­cine on the the­ory that it tastes bad.

On the oth­er hand, Con­gress is also deeply sus­pi­cious of the agen­cies it has cre­ated, es­pe­cially when they are staffed with polit­ic­al lead­er­ship of the op­pos­ite party. (Courts are, too.)

And Con­gress is right to be sus­pi­cious — bur­eau­cra­cies can take on a life of their own, and not in a good way. The FCC is cer­tainly no ex­cep­tion.

So the typ­ic­al com­prom­ise is for le­gis­lat­ors to wait un­til enough sub­stant­ive de­cisions they don’t like have been made. And then they will at­tack the pro­cess, of­ten pro­pos­ing pro­ced­ur­al changes that are sub­stance by oth­er means.

Act 3 rarely ends up in ac­tu­al, bind­ing policy changes — and this latest ex­er­cise is not likely to prove an ex­cep­tion.

But soon we will have a new cast of play­ers, who will be­gin the over­sight re­la­tion­ship anew. Un­doubtedly, they will be­gin the pro­cess with high hopes of co­oper­a­tion on sub­stance. They should bear in mind that 2015 — and the po­ten­tial for yet an­oth­er pro­cess-fo­cused Act 3 — is just a few short years away.

NOTE: Bruce Got­tlieb is gen­er­al coun­sel of Na­tion­al Journ­al‘s par­ent com­pany, At­lantic Me­dia. Un­til last sum­mer, he was chief coun­sel and seni­or policy ad­viser to the cur­rent chair­man of the FCC, Ju­li­us Gen­achow­ski, and be­fore that, he was an ad­viser to Com­mis­sion­er Mi­chael Copps.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.