If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It
Posted: 06/2000
If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It
Is it simply election-year politics, or
is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 broken?
For some, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Telecom Act never has lived up to its promise of encouraging competition. He points to the continuous parade of mergers, buyouts and acquisitions as proof the field of players is shrinking. He also cites increased costs for some media services as evidence that the promise of lower fees has not been a result of the act’s passage.
The former Republican presidential candidate, who campaigned as a reformer, retains his powerful position as the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and also has been an outspoken critic of the FCC. He believes it is in dire need of–what else–reform.
Is it?
Obviously the answer to that question depends much on your own philosophy of government and its responsibilities. In the area of commerce, the U.S. Constitution grants government almost unlimited authority to act.
According to TRA President Ernest B. Kelly III, the FCC has proven to be an important guardian of competitive opportunities for small businesses and competitors in this industry. So why mess with it?
While some in Congress may disagree with the processes the FCC undertakes in its responsibility to review, analyze and decide issues relative to the growing media world, certainly some of the rhetoric is ambiguous.
For example, when FCC critics such as McCain want a more streamlined review process of potential mergers to make them easier and less time-consuming, does that not play into the hands of the conglomerate mentality he says he opposes?
The FCC is charged with protecting the public interest in regard to media. Without it, who would be the stopgap to ensure many voices, not one, are heard?
So what if the decisions the FCC must make sometimes seem to take a longer time than the interested parties would like. Certainly neither legislative chamber could perform this arduous task. Neither of them seems able to do much of anything in as short a time it takes the FCC to act.
The Telecom Act was the result of reforming the original Communications Act of 1933, and it obviously was long overdue. The actual evolution of communications law began long before 1996, and it involved years of study, input, hearings and compromise.
As Kelly says, the ’96 act represents the best law that could have been achieved given the circumstances. He adds that the act is working as it was intended, despite the critics.
Kelly also may be right-on when he states that attempts by McCain, or anyone else in the Senate or House, to change the act now could inflict the kind of damage that far exceeds any problems that may exist today.
Bruce Christian
Managing Editor
