Modernizing the Communications Act

One of the most common criticisms of the Communications Act is the so-called “siloed,” sector-based nature of the law and resulting regulation. The Communications Act consists of seven titles: general provisions, common carriers, provisions related to radio, procedural and administrative provisions, penal provisions and forfeitures, cable communications, and miscellaneous provisions. Each of the titles governs a specific sector of the communications economy with inconsistent approaches to definition and regulation.

By dividing the overall regulatory scheme into separate titles based on specific network technologies and services, the law does not contemplate the convergence of technologies in the modern digital era. While there were historic reasons for separating the Act into service-based titles, the Act and subsequent changes to it did not envision the intermodal competition that exists today. As a result, there are different regulatory obligations based on the mode of technology, even though many of the technologies are functionally equivalent either technologically or from the consumer perspective. Because the Federal Communications Commission is structured in much the same way as the Act, the assorted bureaus and divisions within the agency may duplicate certain functions and fail to cover other functions, resulting in a lack of clear regulatory authority.

These questions address thematic concepts for updating the Communications Act. In addition to these, the committee will accept comments on any aspect of updating communications law. Please respond by January 31, 2014 to CommActUpdate@mail.house.gov:

1. The current Communications Act is structured around particular services. Does this structure work for the modern communications sector? If not, around what structures or principles should the titles of the Communications Act revolve?
2. What should a modern Communications Act look like? Which provisions should be retained from the existing Act, which provisions need to be adapted for today’s communications environment, and which should be eliminated?
3. Are the structure and jurisdiction of the FCC in need of change? How should they be tailored to address systemic change in communications?
4. As noted, the rapidly evolving nature of technology can make it difficult to legislate and regulate communications services. How do we create a set of laws flexible enough to have staying power? How can the laws be more technology-neutral?
5. Does the distinction between information and telecommunications services continue to serve a purpose? If not, how should the two be rationalized?