FCC TO REVAMP BUREAUS, INCLUDING MERGER OF CABLE, MASS MEDIA

Media Bureau will oversee “video news and entertainment policy and licensing functions and will recognize workload changes, especially in the cable area,” Richards said. Functions will cover equal employment opportunity policy, political programming, AM, FM, LPFM, TV, LPTV, cable policy and postlicensing DBS policy. Some enforcement-related functions that had been purview of Cable Bureau would shift to Enforcement Bureau, with some consumer information duties moving to expanded Consumer Information Bureau, Richards said. Licensing responsibility for MMDS would be transferred to Wireless Bureau. Media Bureau would have divisions for policy, engineering and industry analysis, and Office of Broadcast License Policy would have oversight over Audio Div. and Video Div., she said. Current Cable Chief Kenneth Ferree will become head of combined bureau. Richards told reporters after meeting that she expected changes to be in place within one year and “I am hoping it is much less than a year.”

In Wireline Competition Bureau, audit and enforcement-related functions would shift to Enforcement Bureau. Reconstituted bureau would have 4 divisions: (1) Competition policy. (2) Pricing policy. (3) Policy and administration of various funds FCC oversees, including fiscal oversight of funds for universal service, numbering resources and telecom relay services. (4) Industry analysis and technology. Among expected benefits of changes, Richards said, would be better use of auditing and accounting “as an investigative tool to improve enforcement.” She said moves also would “capitalize on the full potential” of Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) by combining expertise of staff members who collect ARMIS data with those who analyze industry trends. Bureau also would be able to “better integrate” all parts of local competition policymaking, Richards said.

International Bureau would consolidate similar functions into divisions for policy, satellite and strategic analysis and negotiations. Richards said changes were designed to consolidate intergovernmental and regional planning, leverage policy and engineering resources “to more efficiently handle policy and rulemaking” and improve focus on satellite licensing and policy. FCC Wireless Bureau and Enforcement Bureau would undergo less of overhaul, picking up some new duties but with structures essentially intact. Richards said of new Bureau of Consumer Information & Intergovernmental Affairs: “The name change better reflects the increased functions of the bureau.” Restructuring would align “like functions more closely at the bureau, enhance its policy role in decision-making and increase its intergovernmental partnership role” with federal, state, local govts. and tribal nations, she said. Bureau would have: Consumer Information Network Div., Information Requests Office, Policy Div., Disability Rights Office, Reference Information Center, Consumer Affairs and Outreach Div.

Each bureau would have Industry Analysis Div. and Engineering Div. or chief economist and engineer, or both, Richards said. Bureau and division names still could change as final touches are implemented. “A specific plan for the restructuring” will be developed over next few months, as bureaus work with FCC and National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 209, she said. Work will focus on who should move and with which functions and assignments. “I want to note that, under the plan, no staff will be eliminated,” Richards said.

Item will be presented for Commission approval covering rule changes in organizational structure, delegation of authority and personnel changes, Richards said. After 8th floor approval, final union approval will be sought, she said. Before plan takes effect, concurrence is needed from Senate and House appropriators. Under federal law, FCC can’t use appropriated funds to reorganize unless appropriations committees are notified 15 days in advance of such funds’ being reprogrammed. Plan will take effect once go- ahead is received from congressional appropriations and authorization panels, she said.

Bureau changes are part of business plan spearheaded by Powell examining comprehensive FCC reform. Richards said communications policy had been centered on “carefully confined buckets” based on technology types. “But the industry has changed and so has our workload,” she said. “While it is not timely to abandon those technology-based buckets, it is timely to move forward with some remodeling of the agency.” Among feedback that Richards said she had received from nearly 150 parties since May on reform plan has been suggestions to get rid of outdated regulations, focus on timeliness and put as much information as possible online.

In update on overall progress of plan, Richards said: (1) Office of Gen. Counsel’s transaction team has been leading agency- wide review of procedures for assignment and transfer of control applications. Bureaus have dealt with those responsibilities in different ways and transaction team will make recommendations “for the next steps,” she said. (2) In management areas, agency has undertaken inventory of pending actions throughout FCC, with eye on eliminating backlogs. “We are working to reduce the processing time for each filing and to make the goals more uniform across all bureaus, where possible.” Commission has circulated rules and procedures to “improve the deliberative process,” Richards said. “The rules would adopt clear and transparent procedures to speed decision-making.”

(3) “Multiyear project” has been undertaken to use technology better along with licensing integration project, with goal of consolidating agency’s licensing systems. Richards said she had heard complaints that each of FCC’s licensing systems asked for different information, and project would function as “virtual licensing” bureau to produce single licensing system, even though Commission could tailor data to its own needs. “It is a rather massive long-term undertaking as we have over 2 dozen different major systems today,” she said. (4) Training program is being beefed up, including hiring or extending offers for 18 new field- level engineering positions in Office of Engineering & Technology. That would increase technical staffing 38% at OET, Richards said. Agency also has made $1.6 million in capital investments at its lab in Columbia, Md., more than has been spent on maintenance and upgrades at facility “cumulatively in over 20 years,” she said. Money is being used to upgrade radio frequency measurement equipment to allow more accurate measurements to ensure that communications and electronic equipment complies with FCC technical requirements, she said. -- Mary Greczyn

FCC Notebook

In other business, Commission unanimously approved rule changes to help usher in broader use of software defined radio (SDR). FCC adopted first report and order that allows software modifications in SDR to be made through “permissive change,” which has streamlined filing process for equipment approval. Using SDR technology, wireless phones can receive intelligence from software instead of hardware, so radios can be altered quickly to transmit on different frequencies and in different formats. Under previous rules, if manufacturer wanted to change frequency, power or modulation type of transmitter that already had received FCC approval, brand new approval from agency was required. That meant that equipment had to be relabeled with new identification number. Process is burdensome for SDR technology, which can be reprogrammed in field. Under rules adopted Thurs., FCC identification number doesn’t have to be changed when software is altered under permissive change, meaning relabeling isn’t needed. Permissive changes can be obtained only by original entity that obtained equipment authorization, said Hugh Van Tuyl, senior engineer in FCC Office of Engineering & Technology. If other parties, such as software developers, want to change equipment, FCC order will allow optional electronic label for SDRs in which agency ID number could be posted on LCD screen. “It will allow another party to obtain an equipment approval in its name and become the party responsible for compliance instead of the original grantee,” FCC said. Action also requires that individual granted such permissive change take “adequate steps” to prevent unauthorized software modifications to radios. FCC action didn’t create specific security requirements at this time. Commission said that would allow manufacturers flexibility to develop “innovative equipment” while providing oversight through equipment authorization process. FCC Chmn. Powell put SDR item into broader framework of spectrum policy, which he said involved not only addressing interests in obtaining more spectrum but also ability to use existing spectrum “quite a bit more efficiently.” He said he would like to see balance that, in part, placed emphasis on providing right incentives and framework for more efficient spectrum use. Comr. Abernathy said order “ensures our rules keep pace with technological developments.” Ron Smith, Intel Senior Vp-Gen. Mgr. of Wireless Communications & Computing Group, praised order for recognizing “the distinction between software that affects radio communications and user applications, such as e-mail and games.” He also applauded extent to which item excluded user applications from any certification process. SDR Forum also commended first report and order, saying new rules would “speed the introduction of advanced technology and new services.”

----

In other action at agenda meeting, FCC initiated review of separate affiliate requirement for independent LECs -- small, rural companies that collectively make up 2% of nation’s access lines. Unlike Bells, those companies are allowed to provide in- region long distance service without meeting Telecom Act’s checklist, but they must form separate affiliates if their long distance businesses are facilities based. Agency voted to begin rulemaking to consider reducing regulatory burden on independent LECs by lifting separate affiliate requirement. Commission will seek comments on whether “public interest outweighs the regulatory costs” for small LECs and whether there are alternative ways to guard against anticompetitive behavior, such as applying separate affiliate requirement to more limited category of independent LECs.