WHAT'S IN A NAME?

If you go back far enough, it was called the Safety & Special Radio Services Bureau. That name was good for decades. But then the pace picked up. It first was relabeled the Private Radio Bureau. Of course, neither of those first two names meant a thing to anyone outside or even within the FCC unless they were immersed in private land mobile matters – a small, but stalwart, breed. It then became the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, a savvy PR move that occurred just about the time wireless began to be followed by the general press as a sexy “new” industry. To the uninitiated, wireless meant cellular and possibly paging. If they understood that there was a wireless world beyond (indeed before) cellular, they often referred to it, dismissively, as “taxi dispatch.” And now it looks like the WTB will be renamed again or subsumed entirely within some other part of the FCC.

There’s much scuttlebutt making the rounds that the FCC is going to undertake another major reorganization. These rumors could be nothing more than the product of the annual August-in-Washington doldrums. As the City heats up, the natives decamp and news slows to a crawl.

But there are indications that this is more than just another conspiracy theory. The WTB Bureau Chief position has been open since John Muleta left in March. Even if you believe the pay, the hours, the politics and the general aggravation are enough to keep any sane person from being arm-twisted into taking the job, more than four months should be sufficient to find a replacement for a relatively high-profile slot at a hot agency. Also, the administration remains focused on broadband deployment, particularly in rural areas, and may need to tear down regulatory silos to make that happen. That kind of upheaval can be more easily accomplished in an agency structure without historical allegiances to competing types of broadband providers.
And now it turns out that Congress has interjected itself into the mix which always ups the ante – and usually complicates the process. Congressman Wynn, a high-ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee, introduced legislation in June that would reorganize the agency. He also wants to move away from regulation based on technology in favor of a more function-oriented approach. At about the same time there were reports that Chairman Martin was contemplated a shake-up. Whether that thought arose before or after the FCC got wind of Congressional meddling may never be known.

Some of the changes rumored to be under consideration at the Commission made more sense than others. One theory was that wireless policy decision making would be shifted into the Wireline Competition Bureau. Now there are plenty of intelligent people in that Bureau, but other than matters such as E911, universal service and number portability that involve consumer-oriented CMRS carriers and cross the wireline/wireless boundary, it’s hard to understand what expertise they would have on wireless issues. Likely not much when it comes to IG/YG, the safe harbor table, and frequency coordination processes.

Another was that WTB would be combined with the Office of Engineering & Technology in an uber-spectrum Bureau. The OET staff would be a welcome addition to any Bureau. They have lots of smarts about new technologies and other good stuff, but OET traditionally has been a spectrum and technology resource for all FCC operating bureaus. It’s difficult to imagine that the Media Bureau, for one, wouldn’t want to maintain at least equal (some would argue, historically, primary) access to that expertise.
So an FCC reorganization may be in the works and that possibility will give telecommunications-oriented people in DC something to think and gossip about for the rest of the summer.

But what does this nomenclatorial shell game mean to the industry, if it means anything at all? Why should you care if they reshuffle the deck or rename the part of the FCC with which you deal?

Here are two reasons:

1) The name can reflect and affect Bureau priorities. The Safety and Special and Private Radio Bureaus recognized the traditional Part 90 users as their constituents. Not all were equal, public safety generally outranked the rest in case of conflict, but Part 90 had a tighter grip on the Bureau than services like aviation and marine. When PRB was renamed WTB and its responsibility expanded to include wireless services like cellular and PCS, the Part 90 PLMR users, except public safety, dropped down a notch in the pecking order. It doesn’t mean they don’t love you anymore, just that when they have too much to do and not enough hands, the higher priority services tend to get the lion’s share of attention. And who wants to work on mundane licensing matters when they could be involved in the kinds of mega-mergers that are good cocktail party fodder. Not many as you likely have discovered in recent years.

2) The people are everything. The most important think about any Bureau is the people with whom you deal and every reorganization means major personnel changes. You saw that already when the WTB did an internal shuffle to add a Broadband Division that drew people from both what are now PSCID and CWD. Of course, that may be good. It creates new opportunities for the staff. It permits you to play a new hand rather than continue dealing with the same folks. But personnel changes also mean delays. An FCC long-timer once said (off the record) that every reorganization costs them a year’s worth of work; six months before it happens while people figure out where they want to be and maneuver to get there, and six months after while they learn their new positions, co-workers, constituents and issues. That may be a pessimistic view, but probably not by much.

Change can be good – even necessary. Institutions and people become stale when they handle the same issues day-in and day-out. It’s difficult to think “outside the box” when you’ve been in the same cubicle for too long. As long as PLMR ends up with a reasonable location on the FCC’s radar screen and with the right people to get the job done, they can call it the Kumquat Bureau for all anyone cares. In the meantime, however, it might not be a bad idea to try to get the Bureau to act on matters near and dear to your heart. The changes brewing may come quickly and sometimes the devil you know really is better than the one who will be handling the issue in the FCC’s brave new world.