Reboot FCC.gov Update

Your Blogger's Suggestions Doing Well

In the voting on the FCC suggestion site, your blogger's suggestions seem to be doing rather well.

The top suggestions so far deal with the following:

• Require at least one FCC Commissioner to be an engineer - 30 votes
• Get rid of the BPL - 25 votes
• Automatically renew an Amateur Radio License for a full 10 year term when the operator upgrades - 19 votes
• Get rid of rules that cannot be enforced such as the GMRS license requirement - 18 votes

These seem to have significant input from the personal radio crowd!  No one seemed to pay any attention to how FCC would "require at least one FCC commissioner to be an engineer".  No one seemed to notice that some engineers favored BPL

But the next highest vote is the suggestion shown at the top of the pagee.  If you agree, could you surf over to the website, signin in with either your Facebook/Google/Yahoo etc. account or you can create a new UserVoice account, and consider voting for this suggestion and others you find of value.  Better yet, input your own ideas

 I received the following reply from Steve Crowley to a previous blog post which I shall repeat here:

"Relatedly, in September, the FCC received a Petition for Rulemaking from a proponent of wireless technologies intended to reduce cell phone use that might cause distracted driving. As far as I know there was no Public Notice from the FCC. I wonder if there have been similar filings, given the current elevation of the issue of distracted driving? Thus, I support your proposal to publish lists of all Petitions that have been filed.

The Petition I am referring to can be found on the proponent's web site:

http://www.trinitynoble.com/pdf/FCC_Petition_4_Rulemaking.pdf"

This complements well a suggestion by Richard Weil that I have commented on at the FCC site.  You might want to support that suggestion also.

A New Day Dawns at FCC:

Acting Chairman Copps
Addresses FCC Staff


Welcome change came to FCC yesterday with an address by Acting Chairman Copps to the FCC staff. Paralleling actions at the White House, Copps took quick action to try to undo some of the more pernicious policies of the ancienne regime and improve FCC effectiveness. Here is his statement on improved communications within FCC:

"Second is how Commissioners and Bureaus communicate between and among themselves. In order for all of us to do our jobs well, make reasonable policy decisions, oversee the regulated industries under our purview, and represent American consumers, we must improve these lines of communication as well. To promote more openness, starting this coming week, we will have a weekly Chairman’s Office Briefing with Bureau and Office chiefs, or their designees, and we will include a representative from each Commissioner’s office.

Opening up these meetings will, I am convinced, significantly improve the quality of our decision-making. It will also expedite the business of the Commission. I also want to ensure that my Commissioner colleagues have unfettered access to the Bureaus, with the presumption being that requests for information will be honored, and that there will be positive outreach from the Bureaus and Offices to them, with the presumption being that important information shouldn’t have to be asked for—it should be provided.

I realize this is not a bureau-created problem but, beginning now, requests from Commissioners’ offices—not just the Chairman’s Office—should be answered directly and as quickly as possibly, just as if the Chairman’s Office is asking for it and without the need for running those requests through the Chairman’s office first—the only exception I can currently think of being the very narrow one that such requests not be unusually time-consuming or necessitate an excessive juggling of Bureau or Office resources. In those cases, we will attempt to craft a workable solution."

I hope the new FCC will also consider one of my suggestions at the FCC Reform Conference:

"Open Door Policy
The House Energy and Commerce report documents how employees have been forbidden to speak to commissioners without the approval of the Chairman’s Office. This policy should be immediately revoked and a responsible system for staff members to express concerns over policy issues should be developed. The State Department model might be one for follow. Allowing responsible expression of employee concerns may actually decrease “leaks” as staffers feel that their thoughts are at least being considered rather than being totally ignored."

Congratulations Chmn. Copps on a good new beginning!

(From Ars Technica)

FCC Now Exceeds Minimum
Legal Requirements for
"Sunshine"

While the current FCC has been criticized often for its failings in transparency, a Public Notice yesterday shows that it is now implementing Chmn. Martin's promise to exceed the requirements of the Carter-era Government in Sunshine Act.

Rather than just announce the agenda of open meetings at the one week minimum which is when most communications with the outside on agenda items is cut off, now everyone - not just well connected lobbyists - is getting several week' notice.

My congratulations on this positive movement and hope that there will be more moves in this direction.

FCC's "Down Under" Counterpart Announces
"A New Approach to Consultation on Spectrum Matters"

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) recently announced "A New Approach to Consultation on Spectrum Matters". So despite having to stand on their heads all day and drink a lot of Foster's and Yellow Tail Kangaroo, these blokes seem to be doing a good job thinking about spectrum.

The ACMA announcement deals with a 3 prong approach.

1. Establishing a new peak body, the Radiocommunications Consultative Committee to replace the former Radiocommunications Consultative Council and the International Radiocommunications Advisory Committee, but have a somewhat different emphasis and approach.

2. Holding an annual radiocommunications conference (RadComms), as well as other seminars during the year to reach its wide, and broadening, groups of more general stakeholders.

3. Introducing a range of transparency measures. The most notable of these is to publish on the ACMA website, and regularly update, a five-year plan of ACMA’s spectrum planning activities which is, as far as possible, on a band-by-band basis.

But doesn't FCC already have a similar advisory committee? You mean the Technological Advisory Council (TAC) which hasn't met since July 20, 2006?


Or perhaps you are confusing it with NTIA's Spectrum Management Advisory Committee
which has met twice in the past 3 months.

How about "annual radiocommunications conference (RadComms), as well as other seminars during the year to reach its wide, and broadening, groups of more general stakeholders". FCC management has been reluctant to have such general outreach. I note that my wife's friends at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission do have an annual Regulatory Information Conference where they meet with their regulatees to explain recent technical policy changes and ask for feedback. FCC management traditionally prefers private meetings with large corporations and major trade groups and generally avoids the technical community. Score another for the Aussies!

Finally improved transparency and a 5 year plan. Not a bad idea! Maybe I'll lift a Foster's to ACMA to congratulate them on good thinking.

How the FCC Engages the Spectrum Community
(Or Not)

I got a brochure in the mail a few days ago for Practicing Law Institutes's 25th Annual Institute on Telecommunications Policy and Regulation in December in Washington. I noticed that the FCC speakers include Chairman Kevin J. Martin, Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, Commissioner Robert M. McDowell, Wireline Competition Bureau Chief Thomas J. Navin, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief Fred Campbell, and Homeland Security Bureau Chief Derek Poarch. I also noticed the price tag: $1395 for the 2 day meeting!

Now PLI is a nonprofit well established group and this is a long standing program that has always had lots of top level participation. So I do not begrudge PLI for landing this star studded group of FCC speakers.

I have written previously about the poor communciations between FCC management and the spectrum community and the cost of such "sounds of silence".

The current Commission is notorious for the short leash it keeps its employees on with respect to outside speaking. It has become nearly impossible to get FCC speakers on spectrum-related topics even if the invitation is limited to describing current procedures. Several times I have asked FCC employees to speak to innocent issues and gotten the answer that the Chairman's Office approval process is so painful and so unlikely for positive response that they don't even want to try. I was amazed that this high level process even applies to FCC employees passively attending technical conferences without any speaking role!

I note that November 26-30 in Washington is the IEEE 50th Anniversary Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOMM). Any FCC speakers at any level? No. Not even in FCC backyard where cost would be limited to subway fare.

So if top FCC leaders can engage lawyers at $1395 meetings, why can't anyone from FCC engage the spectrum technology community in its own backyard? If the commissioners and bureau chiefs don't want to engage an IEEE audience personally for some reason, why don't they at least let senior managers keep up a useful dialog with the spectrum community?