We see protests on a regular basis in the US. Pro-Trump, anti-Trump, for and against whatever issue is bothering enough people to get them out of their homes and into the streets. After reading this column, some group may head down to L Street, Northeast, in Washington, carrying their “Abolish the FCC” signs!
Recently, Radio World, which focuses on engineering topics, ran an article about a paper entitled “Disbanding the Federal Communications Commission.” The author was Professor Mark Jamison of the University of Florida. He is also director of their Public Utility Research Center. The paper was written as a working paper for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative DC think tank.
Of course, I downloaded the paper and read the whole thing to spare you the effort!
The Idea
Some readers would probably be very happy if the FCC were abolished. Odd and/or outdated rules, paperwork, and limitations on what your station can do — as against the freedom given to streamers and SiriusXM — well, it’s understandable. Dr. Jamison offers other reasons for eliminating this piece of the federal government.
The argument in favor of the FCC stems from a word I’ve used in this column before: “scarcity.” When I was growing up, most markets had three commercial television stations and one public TV operation. If you lived in a top 10–20 market, there might have been an independent TV station as well. Most markets also had perhaps 10–20 radio stations, and no entity could own more than one AM and one FM. Then there was the telephone situation, also regulated by the FCC.
There was a landline company, typically owned by Ma Bell, which also handled long distance. A few independent phone companies existed, but this didn’t mean competitive — it meant that each one had its own monopoly service area. My hometown had Rochester Telephone, which was not part of the Bell system. For decades, if you wanted phone service, you used them. Your phone or phones were supplied by the company as well. All of that represented “scarcity” and lack of consumer choice.
Let’s consider the current media environment. Assuming you have decent internet access — essentially a given almost anywhere in the US — how many video choices do you have at any given time? An unlimited amount. How about audio? Same answer.
How many phone companies can you choose from? Plenty, even if there are only three true nationwide cell networks. Do you have to lease a phone from the same company? Not at all — BYOP (bring your own phone)!
Dr. Jamison’s argument is that the raison d’être for the formation of the FCC under the Communications Act of 1934 no longer exists.
Dr. Jamison also argues that eliminating the FCC would remove the political aspects that come with a federal agency able to regulate content, either de jure or de facto. This “political intrusion,” as Dr. Jamison calls it, started in the Clinton administration with respect to the internet. It then moved to content under the Obama administration in 2012. Later, “net neutrality” became an issue under Chairman Wheeler in 2013, along with other issues favored by Congressional Democrats.
Per the report, the first Trump administration was lighter on the FCC under Chairman Pai. However, when Commissioner O’Reilly said he didn’t believe a Trump executive order targeting Twitter and Facebook for alleged bias was within the FCC’s authority, his nomination for another term was withdrawn.
Less political influence at the FCC occurred under President Biden. Much of that was due to having an equal number of Democratic and Republican commissioners for much of his term. You may remember the failed attempt to get Gigi Sohn confirmed as the fifth commissioner, and the subsequent delay in nominating a more Senate-acceptable candidate.
Now, Chairman Carr has his agenda, which hews closely to President Trump’s views. It seems that no matter which party is in the White House, the FCC becomes a political football.
What Would Replace the FCC?
If the FCC is gone, what replaces it? Dr. Jamison cites some FCC positives — for example, the spectrum auction process. He suggests staff and operations could be transferred to another agency, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Broadband subsidies could be handled by state telecom offices. Remaining functions could move to the Federal Trade Commission, NIST, and elsewhere.
That leaves our world — broadcasting. On this point, Dr. Jamison is nearly silent, except to say that “broadcast content oversight would end.” The biggest need is ensuring broadcast spectrum licensing continues to operate, keeping interference to a minimum and ensuring operators can keep their stations on the air.
The lack of an FCC would not be carte blanche to drop F-bombs on the air. Laws exist to keep George Carlin’s Seven Words off the airwaves for the foreseeable future. While I don’t expect the FCC to go away any time soon — papers like these are released regularly to influence policy and legislation — it’s an intriguing idea.
Let’s meet again next week.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
