Why Didn't FCC Want Its Employees Polled
on Their Satisfaction?

In a way, this post is about "non-news": the FCC's nonparticipation in the Office of Personnel Management's Federal Human Capital Survey 2006. This survey is not the product of some liberal think tank but rather a commendable Bush Administration initiative that "that measures employees' perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their agencies."

The list of participating agencies shows the whole Executive Branch and a plethora of small independent agencies ranging from the 3000+ employee Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to the small and obscure Marine Mammal Commission. (I note that the little known American Battle Monument Commission, that has a few employees in neighboring Suresnes maintaining a WWI and WWII military cemetery visible from my living room, did participate.) FCC did not participate in the previous 2004 survey either. (The first survey took place in 2002 and seems to have disappeared from the OPM website. However, that first year no small agencies were included.)

OPM describes the survey as follows:

"The Federal Human Capital Survey is a tool that measures employees' perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their agencies. The first administration of this ground-breaking survey in 2002 set a baseline for ongoing assessment in the Federal Government. It was conducted again in 2004 and 2006. The survey:

• Provides general indicators of how well the Federal Government is running its human resources management systems.
• Serves as a tool for OPM to assess individual agencies and their progress toward "green" status on Strategic Management of Human Capital under the President's Management Agenda.
• Gives senior managers critical information to answer the question: What can I do to make my agency work better?"

So why didn't FCC participate? Were the employees too busy? I doubt it since repeatedly employees tell me they aren't doing much because they are waiting for leadership from the "8th floor" to tell them what to do and have been told not to take initiative. Are they too busy in training? No, the training budget has been decimated so that couldn't be the answer. Were they afraid that the survey was stacked against small independent agencies? Well, the slightly larger NRC has proudly announced that it "is tops in two indices, Talent Management and Leadership & Knowledge Management. (NRC) is second in the Job Satisfaction Index and fourth in the Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index." So it looks like small independent agencies could fare well.

Could it be that the "8th floor" did not want public disclosure of an objective independent survey of how FCC employees felt on issues such as how their fellow workers cooperate to get the job done; how their work relates to the agency's goals and priorities; and the overall quality of their work group’s products?

I hope that the trade press asks FCC management to explain their nonparticipation. I hope that the "8th floor" gets curious also. I will gladly post any explanation received from FCC.

FCC Bites into the Child Obesity Issue
(Photograph courtesy of Wikipedia)

[See 7/5/07 update at bottom]

When I wrote a post a few weeks ago above the FCC's UK counterpart, Ofcom, having problems with its attempt at regulating food advertising for children, I did not anticipate that there was FCC interest in this issue. Yet this week on the FCC website appeared "FCC Announces List of Participants on Task Force on "Media and Childhood Obesity: Today and Tomorrow". It turns out that this is not new news. On September 23, 2006 Senator Sam Brownback announced that he "joined FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate to announce the formation of a government and industry task force to examine the impact of media and advertising on children’s health." Yes, the same Sen. Brownback who announced his bid for the presidency on January 25.

Child obesity is a serious problem in many countries. The French government is concerned about it, although a casual look around Paris shows that the problem is minor compared to in the US. The American Obesity Association reports about 15.5 percent of adolescents (ages 12 to 19) and 15.3 percent of children (ages 6 to 11) are obese. It is commonly felt that TV advertising is likely to be a contributing factor to this epidemic.

The ever chaotic FCC website now has created a web page on the issue. It can clearly be seen that this is a high priority, or at least high visibility project, because it has a more sophisticated design* than the normal FCC web pages where the public interacts with the FCC with great difficulty on the day-to-day business of FCC. It even has both "shockwave" animation and music, probably a first for FCC. (This on the website that has no way of finding ongoing rulemakings - if you don't know the docket number - and still uses a search engine dating to the early Clinton Administration!) FCC: if you must use expensive audiovisual techniques on your website to show that you are au courant, when don't you use them constructively to make an audiovisual presentation of why child obesity is important? It isn't clear what the audiovisual effects add to this webpage other than cost.

The formulation of this effort as a "task force" involving members of Congress neatly avoids the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act - for reasons that are never mentioned. For an FCC that advocates transparency for its foreign counterparts this is rather odd.

So I applaud the FCC's entry into this important area and hope that it is more than a political charade. I urge FCC to review what Ofcom has done in this area by going to their "Food Advertising" home page and by searching on their site for other background material on "obesity" that includes the minutes of their advisory committee on the topic. (In doing this search you probably will notice that Ofcom's search engine is a lot more effective than that of the FCC site.) As my earlier post on Ofcom and cheese points out, Ofcom's well intended efforts in this area have had some problems. I hope FCC can learn from these and develop a constructive plan of action including voluntary action by the industries involved as much as possible. Bill Clinton's efforts to remove junk food vending machines from schools shows that voluntary action can have a key role but the threat of effective regulation is a real motivator.
===============================

Update from FCC homepage:

2/13/07
The scheduled Wednesday, February 14, 2007, meeting of the Task Force, “Media and Childhood Obesity: Today and Tomorrow” has been cancelled because of the weather. The Task Force will reschedule the meeting for a future date.

* It is amusing to note that even with the extra attention lavished on this website, it has problems indicating the usual lack of quality control at FCC these days: On the site's Recent Actions page , as of this writing, the top 2 links to FCC's announcement of the task force and Comm. Tate's 1/23/07 statement don't work. The nonfunctioning links used on this page are http://www.fcc.gov/obesity/documents/nr012307.pdf and http://www.fcc.gov/obesity/documents/stdtt012307.pdf while the correct links are http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269715A1.pdf and http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269714A1.pdf.
[This has now been corrected.]

===========
7/5/07 FCC website announces " Extension of Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity"

High-Def Disconnect
For $1,399 and Endless Addons He Got 12 Channels

Yesterday's Washington Post had an article with the above heading. Here's a link to the whole article that should work for the next few days. I was wondering how long it would take people to ask questions as to whom is really benefitting from the DTV transition.

The broadcast establishment hates the account of early DTV history in Joel Brinkley's Defining Vision. It recalls how the HDTV/DTV effort started as a desperate move by the broadcasters to derail TV/land mobile sharing in the mid 80's. FCC has proposed to let land mobile, including public safety share more TV channels than the present channel 14-20 sharing in 13 major urban areas. The establishment countered with the usual FUD (fear, uncertainty & doubt) but was losing. The FCC had drafted a report and order (decision) ratifying its proposal and has already issued a "sunshine notice" announcing the date 7 days hence of the meeting where it would be adopted when the establishment unleashed its last desperate FUD blast: The Japanese are coming with HDTV! NAB has a demo on Capitol Hill of the NHK Hi-Vision analog HDTV system prototype and said that if the US didn't adopt it the whole electronics industry would go down the tube! Oddly, the Pentagon even supported this view.

Eventually analog HDTV gave way to DTV which included the advantage that channels could be packed tighter than analog NTSC or HDTV resulting in what is called in Europe the "digital dividend" - the ability to use less spectrum for the same number of TV channels. However, somewhere along the way the requirement to actually broadcast HDTV disappeared from the FCC Rules so SDTV can now be seen on your new expensive TV set.

So who pays the costs and who gets the benefits of this transition? There are windfall profits for the consumer and broadcast equipment makers. Indeed, despite the original fears that HDTV was needed to prevent a Japanese takeover, there are no US receiver makers left anymore! (Oddly, I heard a high official of the French equivalent of the FCC say recently that the European DTV transition date depended on when Japan, Inc. and China could deliver enough TV sets to Europe.) TV broadcasters were saved from the spectre of sharing with land mobile, but since only 14% of US homes use over-the-air reception today one wonders why that was ever so important. TV broadcasters did have one time costs of the transition with equipment and antenna upgrades but one wonders whether these were significant compared to the value of the broadcast stations involved and their nontechnical budgets, e.g. salaries of on-air personalities and advertising sales people.

But the general public gets stuck with the largest cost - replacing their receivers and recorders. Now there is a Congressionally-mandated program administered by NTIA that helps some households with the transition with $40 coupons, but it remains to be seen how effective it will be.

And now the Post is reminding people they may not get much HDTV when this is all over. I have been saying for a long time that the DTV transition will either be the FCC's most brilliant move or its stupidest. I am still not sure. February 2009 is only 25 months away. We will see then!

Is FCC Stealing Someone Else's Intellectual Property?

I was surfing over to Wikipedia the other day and glanced at the FCC article. I was surprised to see the following text:

"Doraemon

The character "Broadband" (FCC Kids Zone) looks like Doraemon, a popular manga character in Japan. Doraemon was created for print in magazines in 1969, which makes Doraemon predate the FCC's character. According to Japanese news media, both Shogakukan (copyright manager) and Fujiko-production (owner of the copyright) have warned the FCC over the alleged copyright infringement, but so far there has been no answer."

You can see above what "Broadband" looks like. In addition to the links in the article, this link will get you directly to the Google images pages for Doraemon images. So you can decide for yourself.

I suspect the problem is that FCC does most web work inhouse, but contracts out for special web projects like Kids Zone. The contractor may have cut corners by getting to close to the Japanese character. I doubt if FCC has the resources to modify the page if it was done by a contractor. It would be nice if they answered the inquiries from Japan. Perhaps they have already, in which case maybe they should amend the Wikipedia article with a factual update.

As mentioned previously, the FCC website has a ton of information but most of it is hard to find due to poor organization. The site's search engine also is obsolete, complicating usage of the site.

New Chief at International Bureau Completes FCC Spectrum Team

Yesterday Chairman Martin, no doubt smarting from my recent comment that he had not yet filled the top job in the International Bureau, named Helen Domenici as chief of that bureau. Now all the top spectrum policy jobs at FCC have been filled by Chairman Martin.

For the past five years, she has worked at the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President as Assistant Director for Telecommunications and Information Technology. In this role, she has helped develop strategies and coordinate domestic and international policies with respect to telecommunications, broadband, spectrum, and Internet issues for the White House. Prior to joining OSTP, Helen served as a Policy Analyst for more than four years at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the International Bureau actively shaping policies with respect to telecommunications, the Internet, and broadband matters with special focus on infrastructure-related issues.

Before joining the FCC, Helen completed a MBA from Harvard Business School. Prior to attending HBS, she worked for the pharmaceutical company, Pfizer Inc., in the Federal Government Affairs Office, for five years. In addition to her MBA from HBS, Helen’s education includes a B.A. from the University of Virginia. She graduated with Distinction and is a member of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.

Fred Campbell Named Chief,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC

On December 29th, FCC approved the AT&T merger and with less public attention named Fred Campbell as Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Fred had been serving as Legal Advisor for Wireless Issues to Chairman Martin. Thus 21 months after he was elevated to chairman, Chmn. Martin has now filled 2 out of the 3 top wireless positions at FCC.

International Bureau still is in the hands of Acting Chief John Giusti. Julius Knapp was named in October as Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology without public announcement.

Here is Fred's biography from the FCC's announcement:

Fred Campbell most recently served as Chairman Martin’s Legal Advisor for wireless issues, and previously served as an Attorney Advisor in the Wireline Competition Bureau. Prior to joining the Commission, Mr. Campbell worked at Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, where he advised on a broad range of legal issues associated with the provision of domestic and international telecommunications services. Mr. Campbell previously practiced commercial litigation with the law firm of Wolfe Snowden. He also served as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Nebraska College of Law and as a law clerk to the Honorable William M. Connolly of the Nebraska Supreme Court. Prior to beginning his career in the legal profession, Mr. Campbell served in the United States Army. Mr. Campbell earned his B.A. from the University of the State of New York and his J.D., with high distinction, from the University of Nebraska College
of Law.

Fomer Acting Chief of Wireless Catherine Seidel has been named Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. My congratulations to both on these appointments.

RCR Wirelss News article on same topic.

UK's Ofcom Stumbles Over ... Cheese!

First, New Year's Greetings to all!

Readers may feel that I am overly harsh on FCC and too admiring of the UK's Ofcom - their new FCC counterpart. My cable service is out of action here in Paris (people who don't like their cable provider in the US have never encountered Paris' Noos which is worse in everyway possible). The International Herald Tribune has taken a multiday holiday, so I celebrated New Year's Day by buying a copy of The Daily Telegraph ("printed in Brussels").

An article entitled "Labelling cheese as junk food 'unfair' " caught my eye. This article shows that Ofcom, whose spectrum policies I generally admire, is capable of major screwups. The broadcasting side of Ofcom has tried to regulate food advertising to children and has relied on a formulistic approach to defining "junk food". As a result, cheese advertising is forbidden during children's programming, but Diet Coke is OK. The formula assumes 100g (3.5 oz.) servings of any product or condiment and as a result ketchup and Marmite (UK's answer to peanut butter) can't be advertised since 100g of each is is not healthy, even though the usual serving is less.

Of course, the basic lesson here is that regulation seems to be a helpful government tool, but when you try to write a regulation that is clear and understandable and has consensus support you sometimes end up with something that isn't worth doing.

Here is the text of the article. A similar BBC report is here.

New advertising rules that will officially label cheese as "junk food" were condemned yesterday by the dairy industry as unfair, misleading and counter-productive.

Under regulations coming into force this month, broadcasters will be banned from advertising cheese during children's television programmes or in shows with a large proportion of child viewers, such as The Simpsons and Hollyoaks.

The ban is part of a government drive to crack down on junk food adverts on television, which is designed to reduce the exposure of children to foods high in fat, salt and sugar.

It follows evidence that TV commercials have an indirect impact on children's eating behaviour and are contributing to the obesity epidemic.

However, the dairy industry says the rules, which are being introduced by the television regulator Ofcom, are a nonsense.

Under the nutrient profiling model used to distinguish junk food from "healthy" food, cheese is officially labelled as more unhealthy than sugary cereals, cheeseburgers, double chocolate chip cake and full fat crisps.

The industry points out that if breast milk were covered by the rules, it too would be classed as junk food.

Dan Rogerson, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cheese, branded the model as "simplistic and counter-productive".

He said: "How preposterous that Ofcom restrictions should be based on a model so flawed as to take cheese off the air, while diet cola, which has no nutritional value whatever, is left firmly on children's menus. It has to be perverse that while milk may be advertised, a wholesome product made from milk — cheese — cannot."

Ofcom published its draft conclusions on junk food adverts in November and is expected to release its final report within weeks.

Its initial report went much further than expected. It proposed banning the advertising of all foods classified as high in fat, salt and sugar during programmes made for children under 16, on dedicated children's channels and during programmes with a higher than average proportion of child viewers.

However, the ban only covered specific foods, not brands. So while McDonald's cannot advertise burgers during children's programmes, it could promote its restaurants.

The rules also proposed a ban on cartoon characters for adverts aimed at primary school age children shown at any time of the day.

The most controversial part of the proposals is the use of the nutrient profiling model drawn up by the Food Standards Agency.

The model assesses the fat, sugar and salt content in a 100g or 100ml serving of a food or drink — rather than a typical serving.

The food industry says the use of the FSA model has led to anomalies.

Tomato ketchup, for instance, contains a high proportion of sugar and salt and is counted as a high fat, salt and sugar food — even though most people only eat a small amount with a meal. Marmite, which contains 11 per cent salt, is also counted as junk food — even though most people eat only a few grams on bread.

The British Cheese Board says the typical portion size of cheese is 30g to 40g, the size of a small matchbox, not the 100g used in the FSA nutrient profiling model.

If a typical portion sized was used in the model, most cheese would be exempt from the ban, it says.

Nigel White, a spokesman for the board, said: "Cheese is one of the most nutritionally complete foods and can play an important part of a healthy balanced diet for children of all ages."