As the FCC conducts its triennial review of rules for the telecommunications industry, glimpses into the secretive process give hints of deep ideological and political divides within the commission, with little apparent room for agreement or compromise.

by Alex Goldman ISP-Planet Associate Editor [January 10, 2003]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reviewing the rules that allow CLECs and ISPs access to incumbent phone companies' infrastructure. The FCC reviews rules every three years. This is the second triennial review since 1996, and the first under the new Republican administration.

The actual decision making process and the debate it involves are not public. We know that each of the five commissioners will get to vote on possible changes. We do not, however, know what is being discussed and voted on—and will not know until the process runs its course and a ruling is issued.

The commission is widely viewed as divided, with two pro-ILEC votes, two pro-CLEC votes, and one swing vote.

The players
There are five FCC commissioners. (Each has a page on the Commissioners section of the FCC website.)

The current Chairman, Michael K. Powell, is the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. Michael Powell was nominated to the commission by Clinton in 1997, and was named its chairman by Bush on January 22, 2001. Powell has an extensive legal background and was chief of staff of the antitrust division of the Department of Justice. A Republican, Powell is generally regarded as a proponent of big business.

Kathleen Q. Abernathy, also a Bush nominee, joined the FCC on May 31, 2001. She was Vice President of Public Policy at BroadBand Office Communications, Inc., a CLEC that declared bankruptcy in May of 2001. Abernathy also has an extensive legal background and is seen as a pro-ILEC Republican.

Kevin J. Martin was sworn in as an FCC commissioner on July 3, 2001. He was a Bush aide, serving as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and also worked on the Bush campaign as Deputy General Counsel. He has an extensive legal background and is seen as the swing vote on the FCC.

Michael J. Copps was sworn in as an FCC commissioner on May 31, 2001. Copps came to Washington in 1970, and served for twelve years as chief of staff for Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC). He is a former history professor and is seen as a pro-CLEC Democrat.

Jonathan S. Adelstein has only just joined the FCC, having been sworn in as an FCC commissioner on December 3, 2002. Adelstein has been a history professor and a communications consultant. For the past seven years, he has served as an aide to Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), and, like Copps, is viewed as a pro-CLEC Democrat.

Lacking access to specifics of the debate between the commissioners, telecommunications industry watchers carefully scrutinize their public statements. (The commissioners make public appearances and publish their speeches on their respective FCC Web pages.)

The playing field
The first hint of approaching changes came in February of 2002 when the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which would reclassify ISP services as a "communications service with a telecommunications component." The ultimate consequence of such a change could be that the FCC would cease to regulate the Internet.

Whereas Powell commented, "with today's decision, among several others, we have stopped talking about promoting broadband and started acting," Commissioner Copps expressed a very different view of the action.

Copps said, "the majority frames this Notice as an exploration of the statutory classification of telecommunications, telecommunications services, and information services. But what we really are deciding is whether the transmission component for broadband services, including for Internet access, should be offered outside the statutory framework that applies to telecommunications carriers. This is an enormously far-reaching decision and I, for one, am nowhere near ready to go there, even tentatively."

1. The playing field and the players

>2. Preparing for chaos

3. The bankers vs. the academics

4. No room for compromise

5. Course unclear