Michael Powell, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, made it clear Tuesday that his deregulatory, free-market view of the agency’s role would represent a radical departure from that of predecessor William Kennard.
In a wide-ranging discussion with reporters, his first since President Bush named him FCC chairman last month, Powell questioned the value of the current limits on broadcast ownership. He also said he would be reluctant to see his agency take a big role in protecting viewers from television content that many people find objectionable.
Powell, 37, also challenged the assumption that his agency should make it a priority to close the digital divide–the notion that lower-income Americans tend to lack Internet access and therefore are falling behind because they are disconnected from the Information Age.
Narrowing that gap was near and dear to Kennard, the Democrat who was Powell’s immediate predecessor and a believer that the FCC had a role in improving society through public policy.
But Powell, a Republican, had a warning for industry groups that might conclude he is so hands-off that he will essentially rubber stamp their agendas.
“I don’t owe any company anything, and I don’t do anything for a company. I don’t like when companies even say `Thank you,'” Powell said. “I try to make the best judgment I can in a way I think will optimize and give the greatest benefit to consumers.”
A former Army officer like his father, Secretary of State Colin Powell, the younger Powell has a similar take-charge manner, talking of “missions” and “objectives” during Tuesday’s briefing. One of his primary goals, he said, was to speed decision-making at the FCC.
Powell’s agency, which answers to Congress, regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. It has often been criticized by broadcast and telecommunications insiders for maintaining a plodding pace and large bureaucracy.
“The FCC increasingly finds itself in the midst of markets that work on Internet time,” Powell said. “If it cannot itself be sufficiently efficient, responsive and decisive in the context of that kind of paradigm, we will render ourselves irrelevant.”
Much of what Powell said Tuesday differed sharply from the views of predecessors Kennard and Reed Hundt, both appointed by President Clinton.
Kennard and many other policymakers believed regulators should reward companies with deregulation once they achieved a competitive market. Powell suggested that deregulation should come first.
“I do not believe deregulation is like a dessert you serve after people have fed on their vegetables,” he said. “I believe deregulation instead is a critical ingredient for facilitating competition.”
That view seemed to put Powell at odds with parts of the Telecommunications Act, which Congress passed in 1996. The law, for instance, requires telephone company monopolies to open their local markets to competition before they are allowed to offer long-distance service.
But Powell suggested he did not necessarily subscribe to that carrot-and-stick approach.
In his remarks, Powell also advocated:
– A bias towards lifting the 35 percent cap on the percentage of the national television households a single company could reach through the stations it owned. Powell acknowledged that the rule was meant to encourage the diversity of broadcast voices viewers receive, but he called that notion “romantic,” with little evidence of effectiveness. He said defenders of caps would have a harder time justifying them to him than they did with his predecessor.
– A reluctance to re-regulate cable TV. Powell said he wasn’t troubled by deregulation in the Telecommunications Act that has led to higher prices for cable-TV service.
– An aversion to policing television content. “There’s a lot of garbage on television and a lot of things that children shouldn’t be viewing. But that doesn’t mean I think the government is my nanny,” Powell said. He urged adults to just turn off the TV and control what children watch.
As for the digital-divide initiative, Powell joked, “You know, I think there’s a Mercedes divide. I’d like to have one; I can’t afford one.”
Turning serious, he said, “It’s an important social issue, but it shouldn’t be used to justify the notion of the socialization of the deployment” of technology.
