IP: Reflections on FCC meetings.

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>

[Note:  This item comes from reader Benn Kobb.  DLH]

At 7:07 -0700 5/11/02, Bennett Kobb wrote:
>From: Bennett Kobb <bkobb@newsignals.com>
>To: dewayne@warpspeed.com
>Subject: Reflections on FCC meetings.
>Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 07:07:13 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>Dave Hughes remarked that he wants to testify before the FCC
>Commissioners on an item he is concerned about (Amateur Service
>spectrum). Of course, public testimony to Commissioners in a formal
>public meeting almost never happens.
>
>There are infrequent "en banc" hearings before the Commission, but
>the witness list is carefully controlled. There is no application
>form to try to get to testify, and members of the public are usually
>not welcome to speak. Witnesses are usually CEOs, counsel for trade
>associations, economists and the like -- the same folks who work
>year round to influence FCC policy anyway.
>
>That spectrum item probably won't come before the Commissioners in a
>public meeting at all. Most Amateur Radio items are not considered
>important enough to take up time at the FCC's legally required
>monthly meetings. The items are normally handled 'on circulation',
>meaning the Commissioners read the bureaus' proposals on their own
>time and vote by computer.
>
>I found a couple of exceptions. One is when there simply isn't
>enough interesting stuff to vote on at the required meeting. So they
>dig a little deeper and pull out the technogeek stuff that may be
>less interesting -- but nevertheless is ready for a vote -- and put
>it on the agenda.
>
>Obscure FCC staffers are called into the limelight to present such
>an item to the Commissioners. They offer the staffers a few pats on
>the head, and chuckle about the obscurity of the item and the people
>whose job it is to think about it.
>
>The other occasion is what I call a "Notice of Proposed Happy
>Making." This is an item they think will make some group really
>happy (like giving them spectrum, or something supposed to help
>consumers) and the FCC wants publicity for it.
>
>When you walk into the FCC meeting room and you see CNN and other TV
>cameras present, it's either Happy Time, or AOL Time Warner is
>merging with AT&T Comcast.
>
>The 2.4 GHz item is probably not happy enough to warrant that treatment.
>
>I have attended many FCC meetings and can remember only one
>occasion, in 1984, when an outburst came from a member of the
>audience.
>
>The subject matter was of intense interest to me: allocation of
>spectrum for something called PRCS -- a sophisticated 800 MHz
>license-free, trunking mobile radio and phone system. The FCC had
>been working on it since the 70s. The cellular phone industry and
>Motorola were aghast at PRCS and fiercely opposed it. An
>experimental PRCS system was on the air in Washington.
>
>The item was placed on the agenda, but abruptly removed -- often a
>sign of high political temperature. It was handled at a subsequent
>meeting.
>
>It was not clear which way the Commissioners would vote. When it
>seemed like they might actually authorize PRCS, a member of the
>audience stood up and started loudly railing against the proposal.
>This was so unusual and shocking -- even more so, because the person
>protesting was James McKinney, the former chief of the FCC's
>wireless bureau and no longer a FCC employee.
>
>He said that if the FCC allowed the public to have this service, the
>FCC would never be able to control it. He eventually sat down amid
>some nervous laughter. The Commissioners then voted against PRCS (50
>FR 865, 1985).
>
>Anyway, the whole incident was memorable. The FCC is much more
>security conscious nowadays. If someone were to address the
>Commissioners without permission, they might not even get out an
>entire sentence before security people grab them.
>
>Benn



------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/