Anyone should have standing to file a complaint to the FCC alleging ex parte rule violations, not just participants in a proceeding, President Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project told a workshop. (See separate report in this issue.) “The transparency function of the ex parte rule affects lots of people, and particularly the press,” he said.
Compliance with ex parte rules seems to vary, FCC staff reviewing the issue have found, a commission official told a workshop Wednesday on the subject (CD Oct 23 p11). The 1997 rules state filers must “adequately summarize the substance of the representation and don’t merely list the subjects discussed,” said Joel Kaufman, associate general counsel.
The FCC said Thursday an internal study had found “a number of areas” in which ex parte rules could be “improved or updated.” A workshop Wednesday will examine how rules and processes might be changed to increase openness and will consider matters related to increasing communication online including on blogs, the commission said. The speakers will be Christopher Bjornson of the Federal Communications Bar Association, Diane Cornell of Inmarsat, Jane Mago of the NAB, Amy Mehlman of Mehlman Capitol, John Muleta of M2Z, Jef Pearlman of Public Knowledge, Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project and David Solomon of Wilkinson Barker. Shortly before Commissioner Michael Copps stepped down as interim chairman, he circulated a rulemaking notice seeking comment on requiring that ex parte filings provide greater detail than who attended a meeting and which rulemaking was discussed (CD July 15 p5). The notice remains on circulation, according to the FCC’s Web site.
A public notice on the FCC’s quadrennial media ownership review asked more than two dozen questions in what officials inside and outside the commission said was another step toward opening a formal proceeding (CD Oct 7 p6). The notice was issued by the Media Bureau Wednesday in advance of workshops with academics, broadcasters and public interest groups it will hold Nov. 2-4 on the subject. Comments on the notice, due Nov. 20 (Docket No. 09-182), and discussion during the meetings should focus on the questions listed in the document, it said.
Some high-profile members of the FCC’s most significant advisory panels could be barred from further service under an Obama administration policy reportedly under consideration at the White House. The proposal was first reported in Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. Craig Holman, Capitol Hill lobbyist for Public Citizen, said in an interview Tuesday the administration appears to be sending up a “trial balloon” as it looks at further tightening lobbyist restrictions. Holman said the restrictions would likely be consistent with the ethics order President Barack Obama released his first day in office.
Some high-profile members of the FCC’s most significant advisory panels could be barred from further service under an Obama administration policy reportedly under consideration at the White House. The proposal was first reported in Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. Craig Holman, Capitol Hill lobbyist for Public Citizen, said in an interview Tuesday the administration appears to be sending up a “trial balloon” as it looks at further tightening lobbyist restrictions. Holman said the restrictions would likely be consistent with the ethics order President Barack Obama released his first day in office. The restrictions would probably apply to committees chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Holman said. That would include such high-profile committees as the FCC Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age, the Consumer Advisory Committee and the North American Numbering Council. Applying such restrictions to independent regulatory commissions raises questions of executive branch interference, said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project. “That aside, as a measure designed to promote public confidence in the activities of government, it’s a potentially useful development,” said Schwartzman, a member of the diversity committee who’s not a registered lobbyist. But a member of one advisory committee and former FCC official noted that advisory committees at the FCC have no decision-making power. “It’s not like the advisory committee is whispering in the chairman’s ear.” A ban on lobbyists would create immediate holes in the Consumer Advisory Committee. Marti Doneghy, representing AARP, Consumer Union’s Joel Kelsey, the American Council of the Blind’s Eric Bridges and former FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani all are listed as registered lobbyists by CQ Moneyline. Among members of the diversity committee listed in the database of registered lobbyists are NAB’s Jane Mago, NCTA’s James Assey, Toni Cook Bush, representing Virgin Mobile, and Google’s Alan Davidson.
The FCC sometimes doesn’t make letters between it and Congress public because the agency has no automatic way to do so, Communications Daily has learned. Most of the letters we reviewed under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request didn’t appear in docket files where they would be accessible to the public. Sometimes letters aren’t there because they don’t address specific rulemakings, but we couldn’t find in dockets some letters between the agency and Congress that are germane to particular rulemakings.
A federal appeals court threw out the FCC’s cable ownership caps in a ruling highly critical of the commission. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed Friday with challenger Comcast that the 2007 ownership limit is “arbitrary and capricious.” The limit of 30 percent of U.S. cable subscribers doesn’t take into account the growth of pay TV by satellite and from telcos as alternatives to cable, the ruling said.
Fault lines emerged quickly at the newly reconstituted FCC, with Republican commissioners objecting in subtle but strong language as the commission Thursday approved three notices of inquiry, all touching on consumer protections and competition. The NOIs on wireless innovation and investment, consumer protections and the annual wireless competition report were approved 5-0. But Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker signaled their concerns, especially on the wireless innovation item.
Comments are due Sept. 8 on a MusicFIRST Coalition petition for an FCC investigation into allegations stemming from a fight over performance royalties. The coalition asked the commission to look into whether radio stations have been “targeting and threatening” recording artists who have supported creating a performance royalty for terrestrial radio, a public notice said. The notice asks whether and how stations have targeted those artists, “including a refusal to air” their music. It also seeks comment on allegations that stations have refused to run ads that support the royalty, whether the NAB is leading a media campaign “which disseminates falsities” about the royalty, and whether some stations are evading public-file requirements by calling their on-air spots against the royalties PSAs. “We recognize that substantial First Amendment interests are involved in the examination of speech of any kind, and it is not clear whether remedies are necessary or available to address the actions alleged by MusicFIRST,” the notice said. Replies are due Sept. 23. MusicFIRST praised the commission for proceeding. The allegations raise troubling questions about broadcasters abusing the public interests, said Media Access Project CEO Andrew Schwartzman. “If these allegations are proven to be true, they will raise questions as to whether some radio stations deserve to receive free licenses for exclusive use of the public’s airwaves,” he said. The NAB said it will file comments in the proceeding and correct the “distortions” raised by the petition. “Contrary to suggestions in the petition, broadcasters are under no obligation to carry everything that is offered or suggested to them,” a spokesman said.