EDITORIAL Tuning In Spring Cleaning

by Edith Lennon, N2ZRW
editor@popular- communications. com

It’s been a tough winter for the FCC, caught in the icy grip of what’s been described
as a “climate of fear.” But the heat was turned way up on the Commission’s top
dog, Chairman Kevin Martin, who is under fire for abusing “FCC procedures by
manipulating or suppressing reports, data and information.” On December 9,
2008, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the congressional body
that oversees the FCC, released its majority staff report, concluding a nearly
year-long investigation. The report was ominously tiltled “Deception and Distrust:
The Federal Communications Commission under Chairman Kevin J. Martin.”
Among Martin’s key transgressions— for our readers at least—was his handling
of the broadband over power line (BPL) issue. Martin vigorously promoted
BPL during his tenor as FCC Commissioner, apparently to the point of “egregious
abuses of power,” though not necessarily criminality. Congress has been
looking into allegations that the agency ignored complaints from broadcasters
concerning interference caused by BPL, delayed an enforcement investigation
for two years, and withheld engineering data regarding BPL from the public. BPL
systems use frequencies between 1.7 MHz and 80 MHz, and the interference
they cause can affect the spectrum used by amateur radio, low-band VHF public
service, and shortwave communications— the only frequencies in the entire
radio spectrum on which worldwide communications are possible without satellites
or other relays. Obviously, cherry-picking data concerning a technology that
can seriously hamper such a broad swath of communications is not in the public
good.
In addition to its findings concerning BPL, the report also concluded that:
• The results of an FCC study of possible consumer benefits in requiring cable
companies to sell channels on an “a la carte” basis were manipulated by Martin.
The House investigation found Martin “undermined the integrity of the FCC staff
and may have improperly influenced the congressional debate on the matter by
ordering agency employees to rewrite a report to conclude that a la carte mandates
would benefit consumers.”
• Martin attempted to manipulate findings of an annual FCC report on the state
of competition in the market for cable and other video services “to show that the
industry had a big enough market share to permit additional government regulation.
When the full commission voted to reject that conclusion, Martin suppressed
the report by withholding its release.”
• The FCC’s oversight of the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund, which
pays for special services for people with hearing or speech disabilities, was slack
under Martin’s leadership, resulting in overcompensation of the companies that
provide these services by as much as $100 million a year—costs that were ultimately
passed along to phone company customers.
In a more general condemnation of Martin’s reign, which was expected to end
under the new administration, the report also found that the commission had
become politicized, had failed to carry out some important responsibilities, and
suffered an undermining of open and transparent regulatory process.
Luckily, winter is nearly over, and with the coming of spring we look forward
to a new chaiman who will throw open the FCC’s windows, put the house back
in proper order, and get down to the business of faithfully serving the public
good.