House Committee Holds First Communications Act Update Hearing

The House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), held its first hearing focused on the committee’s plans for an open and transparent multi-year process leading to a comprehensive update of the Communications Act.

Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Richard Wiley cited his almost five decades in the telecommunications sector in explaining that history shows that innovation happens most when a light regulatory touch is applied. With regard to the update of the Communications Act, he said, “I would suggest that the objective of a statutory rewrite should not be to legislate premised on the current state of the marketplace or even on predictions of what it may look like in the future. Instead, Congress should consider a flexible and technologically neutral framework that will be capable of adapting to technical invention and innovation, whatever it may prove to be.”

Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt said the question before the Subcommittee is: “should Congress fundamentally change the law that authorizes the FCC to implement Congressional intent by means of regulation? My answer is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – and the FCC is not only not broken, but also it is a model example of agency government.”

Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, now the chief lobbyist for the cable industry, suggested that any update to the law needs to provide a legal and regulatory framework that mirrors the “simplicity” that has allowed innovation to flourish over the past twenty years. “This market requires a greater degree of business flexibility, fewer prescriptive rules, and an assurance that any government involvement is applied on a technology-neutral basis and creates a better investment climate,” said Powell. “Rather than dialog and debate around well-worn constructs like regulation and deregulation, free markets versus industrial policy, and competition and monopoly, we should talk more about simplicity -- guiding our companies and our regulatory policies by the concept.”

Former FCC Acting Chairman Michael Copps warned, “I have heard some say that simply because the Act is old, it must be obsolete—that no matter how well it has served us, an act written 18 years ago cannot possibly have relevance in today’s world. As someone only a little younger than the original Act of 1934, I would raise a caution flag or two. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written long ago too, yet we still find them critically relevant in our lives. While it is praiseworthy to ponder changes to the law, I would suggest, firstly, that the framework of the current statute remains in many ways strong and, secondly, that the current Act’s provisions can still do much to improve our communications landscape, to enlarge economic and social opportunity for all of us, and to nourish the kind of civic dialogue upon which successful self-government inevitably depends.”