'Delete' Proceeding Comments Pour In, but What Happens Next Is Unclear
What will come out of the FCC’s “Delete” proceeding is hard to say at this point, since it builds on other FCC efforts to cut regulations, experts said during a webinar Wednesday by the Center for Business and Public Policy at Georgetown University. The FCC has logged more than 1,100 comments so far in docket 25-133, with replies due this week (see 2504290054 and 2504290038).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Permitting reform is a likely focus, said Stephen Pociask, CEO of the American Consumer Institute. “The biggest thing I see is the movement towards discontinuing the old legacy copper networks and moving to an all-IP network.” Pociask and other speakers noted that some of the rules the industry hates the most are at the state or local level, beyond the reach of federal regulators.
The Delete proceeding is “a little different” because the pressure is “coming from the top,” and “it’s covering everything,” said Jeffrey Westling, the American Action Forum's director-technology and innovation policy. “It’s a very broad docket.” He predicted a “long process” working through the comments. One likely area for change is the broadcast-ownership rules, though those are also being examined through the quadrennial review process, he added.
Westling also said FCC Chairman Brendan Carr may be able to move more quickly in some areas through declaratory rulings, such as rolling back funding for Wi-Fi on school buses and for cybersecurity in schools and libraries. Other areas will require more process and a notice-and-comment cycle. “Process does matter,” he said.
Joe Kane, director-broadband and spectrum policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said many old rules and programs were put in place under a regulatory and technological environment “that doesn’t exist anymore.” The U.S. didn’t always have universal broadband deployment, but it does now, for the most part, with BEAD program money going out on top of that, he said.
Kane questioned whether the FCC still needs a USF high-cost program when satellite providers can serve even the most remote areas. “We should at least be rethinking about that.” He also asked whether the FCC shouldn't eliminate the Wireline Bureau. “When you look at the modern broadband marketplace, wireline isn’t really a relevant category anymore.” That bureau “was designed for Ma Bell, and we’re not in that world anymore,” he said.
“It’s about time” to have a conversation about the FCC's role in a deregulated world, said Carolyn Brandon, a senior industry and innovation fellow at the Georgetown center. “Moving beyond the Communications Act, what should the core function of the FCC be?” she asked. Carr “wants to get stuff done,” but others are more skeptical, she said.
“The reality is that one person’s deregulatory initiative often involves regulating others,” New Street’s Blair Levin said Wednesday in a note to investors. “While there will be some benefits for our coverage area in Carr’s delete, delete, delete initiative … we doubt those changes will be material for investors.”
In their reply comments, mainstream telecom groups and companies reiterated many of the points they made earlier this month (see 2504140046). Groups representing competitive players said some of the changes would only help incumbents avoid competition.
CTIA said the number and scope of comments filed speak to the need to cut regulation. “Commenters representing a wide variety of interests, technologies, and stakeholders have made their voices heard, identifying numerous regulations that are costly, unlawful or have simply outlived their usefulness.”
The Competitive Carriers Association said many of the regulations targeted in comments should get the ax, but other proposed cuts could hurt competition. “AT&T suggested eliminating significant data roaming rules, arguing that the obligation is no longer necessary,” and “CCA vehemently opposes this suggestion,” the group said. It similarly opposed calls to eliminate the 5G Fund. In addition, unbundled network element rules remain “critical for smaller providers,” it said.
“At the federal and state level, our members continue to face a high regulatory burden,” Incompas said. The proceeding “has generated hundreds of comments with thousands of suggestions for rules or regulations across all aspects of the Commission’s work that may be unnecessary or affirmatively detrimental and which should not be retained,” it said. The group warned that many of the proposals to cut rules are intended to “entrench incumbents and remove avenues for competition from the market.”