Powell, Martin, Gallagher, Klein, Comstock. Does it really matter?

In a much-anticipated announcement, Chairman Powell confirmed in mid-January that he will be leaving the FCC sometime in March. His decision certainly was not a surprise. He had hinted for some time that he, like many other political appointees, might move on after the election. Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, the post-reelection departure of Cabinet and other high-ranking officials is an expected sight in Washington. Some find the workload and time requirements too demanding; some are able to trade up to a higher position either within or outside of government; some believe they have accomplished the items on their agendas; most leave because of a combination of all of the above. But, in the end, the regulatory world continues to spin while their successors are identified, vetted, approved and ensconced in their new positions.

The Washington reality is that the position is more important than the individual. Even at the so-called independent agencies, of which the FCC is one, it is an unusual event indeed when someone fundamentally out of synch with current administration philosophy gets a key job like FCC Chairperson. Administrations may not move in lockstep, but that’s not for lack of trying. The fine art of political appointments involves an intricate calibration of favors owed, factions to be appeased, agendas to be promoted and, not least, recognition of intellectual and management prowess. However, rarely does it result in a known maverick succeeding to a position of importance.

This is not to say that the individual is unimportant. Few will forget the Hundt era when certain key FCC decision makers disdained input from industry as inherently tainted by bias. It was a group with such intellectual hubris that they truly believed they had nothing to learn from those with greater experience. Industry expertise and data were disregarded in favor of the FCC’s own analyses, analyses sometimes remarkably uncluttered by any historical understanding of the subject matter. The operating assumption appeared to be that industry statements were presumptively unreliable or untruthful and offered merely to advance some improper industry interest. Riding high on what at the time looked like an endless river of auction revenues, the FCC considered incumbents as spectrum “pollutants” whose interests should make way for auction licensees. The hostility between the FCC and most of its constituents reached a fever pitch that took time to simmer down even after the Chairman had left the building.

By contrast, the Powell years have been a relative love fest. They have confirmed that the personal traits and predilections of the FCC Chairperson can have an impact on both agency decisions and the ability to do business with the Commission on a day-to-day basis. Chairman Powell, by nature, is an intellectually curious, but not intellectually arrogant person, interested in hearing multiple points of view from a variety of sources. It was possible to present a position without it being discounted simply because it represents a vested interest. (After all, who except those with an interest in the FCC’s doings would bother to contact them?)

For our more parochial purposes, his interest in advanced technologies and gadgets drove him inexorably toward the wireless industry where most of the action is these days. Historically, FCC Chairpersons have focused first on media issues, second on common carrier matters, and only then on everything else, including wireless. By contrast, Chairman Powell identified as his greatest achievement the promotion of broadband and advanced technologies in a generally deregulatory environment. The 800 MHz proceeding ensured that he had a more than passing familiarity with many of the bands, user groups and industry players near and dear to our hearts. However one views the decision that he supported in that proceeding, his active involvement gave him a perspective on and appreciation for the Part 90 services shared by few, if any, of his predecessors.

The Spectrum Policy Task Force is another example of his style of leadership. It is remarkable to realize that the Commission had not previously undertaken this type of broad, analytical assessment of the spectrum policies used in managing the spectrum within its charge. No one had taken the time or invested the resources to step back and view the forest rather than the trees. At the outset, the SPTF was an alarming concept for many incumbents because it threatened the status quo. It also seemed to rely on some dubious, or at least premature, technical assumptions that had the potential to swamp incumbent operations.

But the follow-up to the SPTF report has been more measured. In some cases, the FCC has explicitly or implicitly acknowledged that its technical assumptions were overly optimistic and has retrenched. In others, the FCC continues to push industry aggressively, but sometimes industry needs prodding to reach its fuller potential. In general, this Commission has not displayed the penchant of some of its predecessors of insisting on doing things entirely its own way. It has adopted a more collaborative attitude that generally bodes well for industry.

This is not to say that all industry segments are happy with the FCC’s decisions. Among others, many broadcasters undoubtedly are willing to assume that the devil they don’t know may be better than the one they do. Ever since an election year-Congress let the FCC know that it wanted a zero tolerance approach to programs with even a potential of offending anyone’s sensibilities, the Commission has gone after offenders with the zeal of a bottle-breaking Carrie Nation. Whether or not he wanted to be the nation’s nanny, that’s the role the Chairman was assigned, and he has carried it out diligently. Although it’s not likely that the next Chairperson will get a different directive, the broadcasters are entitled to their dreams.

It is anyone’s guess whether Martin, or Gallagher, or Klein, or Comstock, or someone whose name has not yet hit the press will be the next Chairperson. Since that person’s policies will be driven largely by the political winds that drive all of Washington, let’s at least hope they will view industry input as a source of useful information and use a consensus building model in their decision making process.