Federal Communications Commission
|Formed||June 19, 1934|
|Jurisdiction||Federal government of the United States|
|Headquarters||445 12th Street SW,Washington, D.C.
|Annual budget||US$388 million (FY 2016, requested)|
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing itself.
The FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the Federal Radio Commission. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC’s mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Political divisions of the United States. The FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America. The FCC is funded entirely by regulatory fees. It has an estimated fiscal-2016 budget of US$388 million. It has 1,720 federal employees.
- 1Mission and strategy
- 3.1Communications Act of 1934
- 3.2Report on Chain Broadcasting
- 3.3Freeze of 1948
- 3.4Telephone monopoly to competition
- 3.5Connection permissivity, indecency crackdowns
- 3.6Telecommunications Act of 1996
- 3.7Modernization of the FCC’s information technology systems
- 3.8Past chairs and notable commissioners
- 4Broadcast licensing
- 7Public consultation
- 9See also
- 11Further reading
- 12External links
Mission and strategy
The FCC’s mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to “make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created “for the purpose of the national defense” and “for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.”
Consistent with the objectives of the Act as well as the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the FCC has identified six goals in its 2006–2011 Strategic Plan. These are:
- “All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality,competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services.”
- “Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation’s economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services.”
- “Efficient and effective use of non-federal spectrum domestically and internationally promotes the growth and rapid development of innovative and efficient communication technologies and services.”
- “The Nation’s media regulations must promote competition and diversity and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery.”
- Public Safety and Homeland Security
- “Communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation’s critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable.”
- Modernize the FCC
- “The Commission shall strive to be highly productive, adaptive, and innovative organization that maximizes the benefits to stakeholders, staff, and management from effective systems, processes, resources, and organizational culture.”
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.
|Mignon Clyburn||Commissioner||South Carolina||D||2018|
|Thomas Wheeler||Chairman||District of Columbia||D||2018|
|Michael O’Rielly||Commissioner||New York||R||2020|
The FCC is organized into seven Bureaus, which process applications for licenses and other filings, analyze complaints, conduct investigations, develop and implement regulations, and participate in hearings.
- The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) develops and implements the FCC’s consumer policies, including disability access. CGB serves as the public face of the FCC through outreach and education, as well as through their Consumer Center, which is responsible for responding to consumer inquiries and complaints. CGB also maintains collaborative partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments in such areas as emergency preparedness and implementation of new technologies.
- The Enforcement Bureau (EB) is responsible for enforcement of provisions of the Communications Act 1934, FCC rules, FCC orders, and terms and conditions of station authorizations. Major areas of enforcement that are handled by the Enforcement Bureau are consumer protection, local competition, public safety, andhomeland security.
- The International Bureau (IB) develops international policies in telecommunications, such as coordination of frequency allocation and orbital assignments so as to minimize cases of international electromagnetic interference involving U.S. licensees. The International Bureau also oversees FCC compliance with the international Radio Regulations and other international agreements.
- The Media Bureau (MB) develops, recommends and administers the policy and licensing programs relating to electronic media, including cable television,broadcast television, and radio in the United States and its territories. The Media Bureau also handles post-licensing matters regarding direct broadcast satelliteservice.
- The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulates domestic wireless telecommunications programs and policies, including licensing. The bureau also implements competitive bidding for spectrum auctions and regulates wireless communications services including mobile phones, public safety, and other commercial and private radio services.
- The Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) develops policy concerning wire line telecommunications. The Wireline Competition Bureau’s main objective is to promote growth and economical investments in wireline technology infrastructure, development, markets, and services.
- The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau was launched in 2006 with a focus on critical communications infrastructure.
The FCC has eleven Staff Offices. The FCC’s Offices provide support services to the Bureaus.
- The Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) is responsible for conducting hearings ordered by the Commission. The hearing function includes acting oninterlocutory requests filed in the proceedings such as petitions to intervene, petitions to enlarge issues, and contested discovery requests. An Administrative Law Judge, appointed under the Administrative Procedure Act, presides at the hearing during which documents and sworn testimony are received in evidence, and witnesses are cross-examined. At the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of a proceeding, the presiding Administrative Law Judge writes and issues an Initial Decision which may be appealed to the Commission.
- The Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) promotes telecommunications business opportunities for small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses. OCBO works with entrepreneurs, industry, public interest organizations, individuals, and others to provide information about FCC policies, increase ownership and employment opportunities, foster a diversity of voices and viewpoints over the airwaves, and encourage participation in FCC proceedings.
- The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) advises the Commission concerning engineering matters.
- Its chief role is to manage the electromagnetic spectrum, specifically frequency allocation and spectrum usage. OET conducts technical studies of advanced phases of terrestrial and space communications and administers FCC rules regarding radio devices, experimental radio services, and industrial, scientific, and medical equipment.
- OET organizes the Technical Advisory Council, a committee of FCC advisors from major telecommunication and media corporations.
- OET operates the Equipment Authorization Branch, which has the task of overseeing equipment authorization for all devices using the electromagnetic energy from 9 kHz to 300 GHz. OET maintains an electronic database of all Certified equipment which can be easily accessed by the public.
- The Office of General Counsel serves as the chief legal adviser to the Commission. The General Counsel also represents the Commission in litigation inUnited States federal courts, recommends decisions in adjudicatory matters before the Commission, assists the Commission in its decision making capacity and performs a variety of legal functions regarding internal and other administrative matters.
- The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommends policies to prevent fraud in agency operations. The Inspector General recommends corrective action where appropriate, referring criminal matters to the United States Department of Justice for potential prosecution.
- The Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) is the FCC’s liaison to the United States Congress, providing lawmakers with information about FCC regulations. OLA also prepares FCC witnesses for Congressional hearings, and helps create FCC responses to legislative proposals and Congressional inquiries. In addition, OLA is a liaison to other federal agencies, as well as state and local governments.
- The Office of the Managing Director (OMD) is responsible for the administration and management of the FCC, including the agency’s budget, personnel, security, contracts, and publications.
- The Office of Media Relations (OMR) is responsible for the dissemination of Commission announcements, orders, proceedings, and other information per media requests. OMR manages the FCC Daily Digest, website, and Audio Visual Center.
- The Office of the Secretary (OSEC) oversees the receipt and distribution of documents filed by the public through electronic and paper filing systems and the FCC Library collection. In addition, OSEC publishes legal notices of Commission decisions in the Federal Register and the FCC Record.
- The Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis (OSP), essentially a think tank within the FCC, identifies policy objectives for the agency. OSP works closely with the FCC Chairman and is responsible for monitoring the state of the communications industry to identify trends, issues and overall industry health. OSP acts as expert consultants to the Commission in areas of economic, business, and market analysis. The Office also reviews legal trends and developments not necessarily related to current FCC proceedings, such as intellectual property law, the Internet, and electronic commerce. Previously OSP was called the Office of Plans and Policy (OPP). OSP is also the home of the FCC’s Chief Economist and the Chief Technologist.
- The Office of Workplace Diversity (OWD) develops policy to provide a full and fair opportunity for all employees, regardless of non-merit factors such as race, religion, gender, color, age, disability, sexual orientation or national origin, to carry out their duties in the workplace free from unlawful discriminatory treatment, including sexual harassment and retaliation for engaging in legally protected activities.
Communications Act of 1934
In 1934, Congress passed the Communications Act, which abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to a new Federal Communications Commission, including in it also the telecommunications jurisdiction previously handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Title II of the Communications Act focused on telecommunications using many concepts borrowed from railroad legislation and Title III contained provisions very similar to the Radio Act of 1927.
Report on Chain Broadcasting
In 1940, the Federal Communications Commission issued the “Report on Chain Broadcasting” which was led by new FCC Chairman James Lawrence Fly. The major point in the report was the breakup of NBC (National Broadcasting Company), which ultimately led to the creation of ABC (American Broadcasting Company), but there were two other important points. One was network option time, the culprit here being CBS (an initialism of the network’s former name, the Columbia Broadcasting System). The report limited the amount of time during the day, and what times the networks may broadcast. Previously a network could demand any time it wanted from an affiliate. The second concerned artist bureaus. The networks served as both agents and employers of artists, which was a conflict of interest the report rectified.
Freeze of 1948
In assigning television stations to various cities after World War II, the FCC found that it placed many stations too close to each other, resulting in interference. At the same time, it became clear that the designated VHF channels, 2 through 13, were inadequate for nationwide television service. As a result, the FCC stopped giving out construction permits for new licenses in October 1948. Most expected this “Freeze” to last six months, but as the allocation of channels to the emergingUHF technology and the eagerly awaited possibilities of color television were debated, the FCC’s re-allocation map of stations did not come until April 1952, with July 1, 1952, as the official beginning of licensing new stations.
Other FCC actions hurt the fledgling DuMont and ABC networks. AT&T Corporation forced television coaxial cable users to rent additional radio long lines, discriminating against DuMont, which had no radio network operation. DuMont and ABC protested AT&T’s television policies to the FCC, which regulated AT&T’s long-line charges, but the commission took no action. The result was that financially marginal DuMont was spending as much in long-line charge as CBS or NBC while using only about 10 to 15 percent of the time and mileage of either larger network.
The FCC’s “Sixth Report & Order” ended the Freeze. It would take five years for the U.S. to grow from 108 stations to more than 550. New stations came on line slowly, only five by the end of November 1952. The Sixth Report and Order required some existing TV stations to change channels, but only a few existing VHF stations were required to move to UHF, and a handful of VHF channels were deleted altogether in smaller media markets like Peoria, Fresno, Bakersfield and Fort Wayne, Indiana to create markets which were UHF “islands.” The report also set aside a number of channels for the newly emerging field of educational television, which hindered struggling ABC and DuMont‘s quest for affiliates in the more desirable markets where VHF channels were reserved for non-commercial use.
The Sixth Report and Order also provided for the “intermixture” of VHF and UHF channels in most markets; UHF transmitters in the 1950s were not yet powerful enough, nor receivers sensitive enough (if they included UHF tuners at all – they were not formally required until the 1960s All-Channel Receiver Act), to make UHF viable against entrenched VHF stations. In markets where there were no VHF stations and UHF was the only TV service available, UHF survived. In other markets, which were too small to financially support a television station, too close to VHF outlets in nearby cities, or where UHF was forced to compete with more than one well-established VHF station, UHF had little chance for success.
Denver had been the largest U.S. city without a TV station by 1952. Senator Edwin Johnson (D-Colorado), chair of the Senate’s Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, had made it his personal mission to make Denver the first post-Freeze station. The Senator had pressured he FCC, and proved ultimately successful as the first new station (a VHF station) came on-line a remarkable ten days after the Commission formally announced the first post-Freeze construction permits. KFEL (now KWGN-TV)’s first regular telecast was on July 21, 1952.
Telephone monopoly to competition
The important relationship of the FCC and the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Company has evolved over several years. For many years, the FCC and state officials agreed to regulate the telephone systems as a natural monopoly. The FCC controlled telephone rates to limit the profits of AT&T and ensure nondiscriminatory pricing. In the 1960s, the FCC began allowing other long-distance companies, namely MCI, to offer specialized services. In the 1970s, the FCC allowed other companies to expand offerings to the public. A lawsuit in 1982 led by the Justice Department after AT&T underpriced other companies, resulted in the Breakup of the Bell System from AT&T. Beginning in 1984, the FCC implemented a new goal that all long-distance companies had equal access to the local phone companies’ customers. Effective January 1, 1984, the Bell System’s many member-companies were variously merged into seven independent “Regional Holding Companies”, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or “Baby Bells”. This divestiture reduced the book value of AT&T by approximately 70%.
Connection permissivity, indecency crackdowns
The 1981 inauguration of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States accelerated an already ongoing shift in the FCC towards a decidedly more market-oriented stance. A number of regulations felt to be outdated were removed, most controversially the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The FCC also took steps to increase competition to broadcasters, fostering broadcast alternatives such as cable television.
In terms of indecency fines, there was no action taken by the FCC on the case FCC v. Pacifica until 1987, about ten years after the landmark United States Supreme Court decision that defined the power of the FCC over indecent material as applied to broadcasting.
After the 1990s had passed, the FCC began to increase its censorship and enforcement of indecency regulations in the early 2000s to include a response to theJanet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that occurred during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII.
Then on June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 sponsored by then-Senator Sam Brownback(now Governor of Kansas), a former broadcaster himself, and endorsed by Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan who authored a similar bill in the United States House of Representatives. The new law stiffens the penalties for each violation of the Act. The Federal Communications Commission will be able to impose fines in the amount of $325,000 for each violation by each station that violates decency standards. The legislation raised the fine ten times over the previous maximum of $32,500 per violation. However, the FCC’s regulatory domain with respect to indecency remains restricted to the public airwaves, notably VHF and UHF television and AM/FM radio.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
In 1996, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in the wake of the break-up of AT&T resulting from the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust suit against AT&T. The legislation attempted to create more competition in local telephone service by requiring Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers to provide access to their facilities for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. This policy has thus far had limited success and much criticism.
The development of the Internet, cable services and wireless services has raised questions whether new legislative initiates are needed as to competition in what has come to be called ‘broadband’ services. Congress has monitored developments but as of 2009 has not undertaken a major revision of applicable regulation. The Local Community Radio Act in the 111th Congress has gotten out of committee and will go before the house floor with bi-partisan support, and unanimous support of the FCC.
By passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress also eliminated the cap on the number of radio stations any one entity could own nationwide and also substantially loosened local radio station ownership restrictions. Substantial radio consolidation followed. Restrictions on ownership of television stations were also loosened. Public comments to the FCC indicated that the public largely believed that the severe consolidation of media ownership had resulted in harm to diversity, localism, and competition in media, and was harmful to the public interest.
Modernization of the FCC’s information technology systems
David A. Bray joined the Commission in 2013 as Chief Information Officer and quickly announced goals of modernizing the FCC’s legacy information technology (IT) systems, citing 200 different systems for only 1750 people a situation he found “perplexing”. These efforts later were documented in a 2015 Harvard Case Study. Bray himself shared regular public updates on the modernization efforts via @fcc_cio on Twitter and blogging. In 2016, Bray was named a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader in recognition of his modernization work at the FCC and for prior “leadership positions working on bioterrorism response, international security and how the ‘internet of things’ intersects with foreign policy” with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and national security counter-terrorism community.
At the Commission, Bray has openly encouraged opportunities to broaden the definition of public service to include citizen-led initiatives and public-private partnerships. He also has emphasized: “As IT accelerates its global distribution and ubiquitous availability, the importance of assuring the integrity of digital communications become paramount” and that communications support “national growth, prosperity, security, safety, and freedom.”
Past chairs and notable commissioners
Regulatory powers and enforcement
The FCC regulates broadcast stations, amateur radio operators, and repeater stations as well as commercial broadcasting operators who operate and repair certain radiotelephone, television, radar, and Morse code radio stations. In recent years it has also licensed people who maintain or operate Global Maritime Distress and Safety System stations. Broadcast licenses are to be renewed if the station meets the “public interest, convenience, or necessity”.
The FCC’s enforcement powers include fines and broadcast license revocation (see FCC MB Docket 04-232). Burden of proof would be on the complainant in apetition to deny. Fewer than 1% of station renewals are not immediately granted, and only a small fraction of those are ultimately denied.
While the FCC maintains control of the written and Morse testing standards, it no longer administers the exams, having delegated that function to private organizations.
Broadcasting tower database
An FCC database provides information about the height and year built of broadcasting towers in the US. It does not contain information about the structural types of towers or about the height of towers used by Federal agencies, such as most NDBs, LORAN-C transmission towers or VLF transmission facilities of the US Navy, or about most towers not used for transmission like the BREN Tower. These are instead tracked by the Federal Aviation Administration as obstructions to air navigation.
In North America, the FCC made its original Internet policy statement containing four principles “subject to reasonable network management” in 2005. The Commission established the following principles: To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
In December 2010, the FCC revised the principles from the original Internet policy statement and created The Open Internet Order consisting of three rulesregarding the Internet: Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services; No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and No unreasonable discrimination. In April 2014, the FCC created a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that called for reform regarding The Open Internet Order. In February 2015, the FCC passed new Open Internet Rules through Congress into law.
In August 2015, the FCC said that nearly 55 million Americans did not have access to broadband capable of delivering high-quality voice, data, graphics and video offerings.
||This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. (March 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
2003 study of commercial radio concentration
In 2003, the FCC Media Bureau produced a draft report analyzing the impact of deregulation in the radio industry. The report stated that from March 1996 through March 2003, the number of commercial radio stations on the air rose 5.9 percent while the number of station owners fell 35 percent. The concentration of ownership followed a 1996 rewrite of telecommunications law that eliminated a 40-station national ownership cap.
The report was never made public, nor have any similar analyses followed, despite the fact that radio industry reports were released in 1998, 2001 and 2002. In September 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer, who had received a copy of the report, released it.
2004 study of television media concentration
In 2004, the FCC ordered its staff to destroy all copies of a draft study by Keith Brown and Peter Alexander, two economists in the FCC’s Media Bureau. The two had analyzed a database of 4,078 individual news stories broadcast in 1998, and showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of “on-location” news.
The conclusion of the study was at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. (In June 2004, a federal appeals court rejected the agency’s reasoning on most of the rules and ordered it to try again.)
In September 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer, who had received a copy of the report “indirectly from someone within the FCC who believed the information should be made public,” wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, asked whether any other commissioners “past or present” knew of the report’s existence and why it was never made public. She also asked whether it was “shelved because the outcome was not to the liking of some of the commissioners and/or any outside powerful interests?” Boxer’s office said if she does not receive adequate answers to her questions, she will push for an investigation by the FCC inspector general.
Action by FCC Chairman
In a letter in response to Senator Boxer, FCC Chairman Martin said “I want to assure you that I too am concerned about what happened to these two draft reports.” The letter also said “I have asked the inspector general of the FCC to conduct an investigation into what happened to these draft documents and will cooperate fully with him.” Martin added that he was not chairman at the time the reports were drafted, and that neither he nor his staff had seen them.
When it emerged in 2006 that AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon may have broken U.S. laws by aiding the National Security Agency in possible illegal wiretapping of its customers, Congressional representatives called for an FCC investigation into whether or not those companies broke the law. The FCC declined to investigate, however, claiming that it could not investigate due to the classified nature of the program– a move that provoked the criticism of members of Congress.
“Today the watchdog agency that oversees the country’s telecommunications industry refused to investigate the nation’s largest phone companies’ reported disclosure of phone records to the NSA,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in response to the decision. “The FCC, which oversees the protection of consumer privacy under the Communications Act of 1934, has taken a pass at investigating what is estimated to be the nation’s largest violation of consumer privacy ever to occur. If the oversight body that monitors our nation’s communications is stepping aside then Congress must step in.”
With the major demographic shifts occurring in the country in terms of the racial-ethnic composition of the population, the FCC has also been criticized for ignoring the issue of decreasing racial-ethnic diversity of the media. This includes charges that the FCC has been watering down the limited affirmative action regulations it had on the books, including no longer requiring stations to make public their data on their minority staffing and hiring. In the second half of 2006, groups such as the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the National Latino Media Council, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the National Institute for Latino Policy, theLeague of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and others held town hall meetings in California, New York and Texas on media diversity as its effects Latinos and minority communities. They documented widespread and deeply felt community concerns about the negative effects of media concentration and consolidation on racial-ethnic diversity in staffing and programming. At these Latino town hall meetings, the issue of the FCC’s lax monitoring of obscene and pornographic material in Spanish-language radio and the lack of racial and national-origin diversity among Latino staff in Spanish-language television were other major themes.
Use of white space
“White spaces” are radio frequencies that went unused after the federally mandated transformation of analog TV signal to digital. On October 15, 2008, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced his support for the unlicensed use of white spaces. Martin said he was “hoping to take advantage of utilizing these airwaves for broadband services to allow for unlicensed technologies and new innovations in that space.”
Google, Microsoft and other companies are vying for the use of this white-space to support innovation in Wi-Fi technology. Broadcasters and wireless microphone manufacturers fear that the use of white space would “disrupt their broadcasts and the signals used in sports events and concerts.” Cell phone providers such as T-Mobile USA have mounted pressure on the FCC to instead offer up the white space for sale to boost competition and market leverage.
|Part of a series about|
|Topics and issues|
|By country or region|
The FCC has claimed some jurisdiction over the issue of net neutrality and has laid down guideline rules that it expects the telecommunications industry to follow. On February 11, 2008 Rep. Ed Markey and Rep. Chip Pickering introduced HR5353 “To establish broadband policy and direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a proceeding and public broadband summit to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, and for other purposes.”On August 1, 2008 the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to upholding a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. The FCC imposed no fine, but required Comcast to end such blocking in 2008. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that “We are preserving the open character of the Internet” and “We are saying that network operators can’t block people from getting access to any content and any applications.” Martin’s successor, Julius Genachowskihas maintained that the FCC has no plans to regulate the internet, saying: “I’ve been clear repeatedly that we’re not going to regulate the Internet.” The Comcast case highlighted broader issues of whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to maintain net neutrality, i.e. treat all uses of their networks equally. The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, software that is commonly used for downloading larger files. On November 10, 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality. On January 16, 2015, Republicans presented legislation, in the form of a U. S. Congress H. R. discussion draft bill, that makes concessions to net neutrality but prohibits the FCC from accomplishing the goal or enacting any further regulation affecting Internet service providers (ISPs). On January 31, 2015, AP Newsreported the FCC will present the notion of applying (“with some caveats”) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on February 26, 2015. Adoption of this notion would reclassify internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications  and, according to Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, ensure net neutrality. The FCC is expected to enforce net neutrality in its vote, according to the New York Times.
On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of theTelecommunications act of 1996 to the Internet. The FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, commented, “This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than theFirst Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept.” Net neutrality is supported by 81% of Americans, according to a Washington Post poll. According to the poll, 81% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans said they opposed fast lanes.
The FCC has also been criticized for ignoring international open standards, and instead choosing proprietary closed standards, or allowing communications companies to do so and implement the anticompetitive practice of vendor lock-in, thereby preventing a free market.
In the case of digital TV, it chose the ATSC standard, even though DVB was already in use around the world, including DVB-S satellite TV in the U.S. Unlike competing standards, the ATSC system is encumbered by numerous patents, and therefore royalties that make TV sets and DTV converters much more expensive than in the rest of the world. Additionally, the claimed benefit of better reception in rural areas is more than negated in urban areas by multipath interference, which other systems are nearly immune to. It also cannot be received while in motion for this reason, while all other systems can, even without dedicated mobile TVsignals or receivers.
For digital radio, the FCC chose proprietary HD Radio, which crowds the existing FM broadcast band and even AM broadcast band with in-band adjacent-channelsidebands, which create noise in other stations. This is in contrast to worldwide DAB, which uses unused TV channels in the VHF band III range. This too has patent fees, while DAB does not. While there has been some effort by iBiquity to lower them, the fees for HD Radio are still an enormous expense when converting each station, and this fee structure presents a potentially high cost barrier to entry for community radio and other non-commercial educational stations when entering the HD Radio market.
Satellite radio (also called SDARS by the FCC) uses two proprietary standards instead of DAB-S, which requires users to change equipment when switching from one provider to the other, and prevents other competitors from offering new choices as stations can do on terrestrial radio. Had the FCC picked DAB-T for terrestrial radio, no separate satellite receiver would have been needed at all, and the only difference from DAB receivers in the rest of the world would be in software, where it would need to tune S band instead of L band.
In mobile telephony, the FCC abandoned the “any lawful device” principle decided against AT&T landlines, and has instead allowed each mobile phone company to dictate what its customers can use.
The FCC has been criticized for awarding a digital TV (DTV) channel to each holder of an analog TV station license without an auction, as well as trading auctionable spectrum to Nextel to resolve public safety RF interference problems. Conversely, it has also been criticized for forcing stations to buy and install all new equipment (transmitters, TV antennas, and even entirely new broadcast towers), and operate for years on both channels at once.
After delaying the original deadlines of 2006, 2008, and eventually February 17, 2009, on concerns about elderly and rural folk, on June 12 all full-power analogterrestrial TV licenses in the U.S. were terminated as part of the DTV transition, leaving terrestrial television available only from digital channels and a few low-powerLPTV stations. To help U.S. consumers through the conversion, Congress established a federally sponsored DTV Converter Box Coupon Program for two free converters per household.
After being successful in opening the FM band as a superior alternative to the AM band by allowing colleges and other schools to start ten-watt LPFM stations, the FCC banned new ones around 1980.
Numerous controversies have surrounded the city of license concept as the internet has made it possible to broadcast a single signal to every owned station in the nation at once, particularly when Clear Channel, now IHeartMedia, became the largest FM broadcasting corporation in the US after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law – owning over 1200 stations at its peak. As part of its license to buy more radio stations, Clear Channel was forced to divest all TV stations.
As the public interest standard has always been important to the FCC when determining and shaping policy, so too has the relevance of public involvement in U.S. communication policy making. The FCC Record is the comprehensive compilation of decisions, reports, public notices, and other documents of the FCC, published since 1986.
History of the issue
1927 Radio Act
In the 1927 Radio Act, which was formulated by the predecessor of the FCC (the Federal Radio Commission), section 4(k) stipulated that the commission was authorized to hold hearings for the purpose of developing a greater understanding of the issues for which rules were being crafted. Section 4(k) stated that:
- Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the commission, from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall… have the authority to hold hearings, summon witnesses, administer oaths, compel the production of books, documents, and papers and to make such investigations as may be necessary in the performance of its duties.
Thus, it is clear that public consultation, or at least consultation with outside bodies was regarded as central to the Commission’s job from early on. Though it should not be surprising, the Act also stipulated that the Commission should verbally communicate with those being assigned licenses. Section 11 of the Act noted:
- If upon examination of any application for a station license or for the renewal or modification of a station license the licensing authority shall determine that public interest, convenience, or necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall authorize the issuance, renewal, or modification thereof in accordance with said finding. In the event the licensing authority upon examination of any such application does not reach such decision with respect thereto, it shall notify the applicant thereof, shall fix and give notice of a time and place for hearing thereon, and shall afford such applicant an opportunity to be heard under such rules and regulations as it may prescribe.
As early as 1927, there is evidence that public hearings were indeed held; among them, hearings to assess the expansion of the radio broadcast band. At these early hearings, the goal of having a broad range of viewpoints presented was evident, as not only broadcasters, but also radio engineers and manufacturers were in attendance. Numerous groups representing the general public appeared at the hearings as well, including amateur radio operators and inventors as well as representatives of radio listeners’ organizations. Interestingly,
- While some speakers at the 1927 hearings referred to having received “invitations,” Herbert Hoover’s assistant observed in a letter at the time that “the Radio Commission has sent out a blanket invitation to all people in the country who desire either to appear in person or to submit their recommendations in writing. I do not understand that the Commission has sent for any particular individuals, however” [Letter from George Akerson, assistant to Sec. Hoover, to Mrs. James T. Rourke, Box 497, Commerce Period Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library (March 29, 1927)] (FN 14)
Including members of the general public in the discussion was regarded (or at least articulated) as very important to the Commission’s deliberations. In fact, FCC Commissioner Bellows noted at the time that “it is the radio listener we must consider above everyone else.” Though there were numerous representatives of the general public at the hearing, some expressing their opinions to the commission verbally, overall there was not a great turnout of everyday listeners at the hearings.
Though not a constant fixture of the communications policy-making process, public hearings were occasionally organized as a part of various deliberation processes as the years progressed. For example, seven years after the enactment of the Radio Act, the Communications Act of 1934 was passed, creating the FCC. That year the Federal Government’s National Recovery Agency (associated with the New Deal period) held public hearings as a part of its deliberations over the creation of new broadcasting codes.
A few years later[when?], the FCC held hearings to address early cross-ownership issues; specifically, whether newspaper companies owning radio stations was in the public interest. These “newspaper divorcement hearings” were held between 1941 and 1944, though it appears that these hearings were geared mostly towards discussion by industry stakeholders. Around the same time, the Commission held hearings as a part of its evaluation of the national television standard,and in 1958 held additional hearings on the television network broadcasting rules. Though public hearings were organized somewhat infrequently, there was an obvious public appeal. In his now famous “vast wasteland” speech in 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow noted that the commission would hold a “well advertised public hearing” in each community to assure broadcasters were serving the public interest, clearly a move to reconnect the Commission with the public interest (at least rhetorically).
Media ownership review 2003
In September 2002, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stating that the Commission would re-evaluate its media ownership rules pursuant to the obligation specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As 2003 was approaching, a battle of words (and perhaps actions) developed between Chairman Powell and Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps. Commissioner Copps felt that the Republican FCC was too focused on the neo-liberal agenda, and not focused enough on hearing the public’s voice regarding the issues at hand, noting, “We need a much wider participation … this is not an inside-the-Beltway issue.”Copps repeatedly called for the FCC to hold public hearings with time devoted to public input. Powell responded by noting that the public had already taken advantage of the online comment submission process and that no public hearings would be necessary. A spokesman for Powell noted, “if Commissioner Copps thinks something more can be gained from having hearings, he should feel free to do so.” In the end, Commissioner Copps and Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein organized a number of “unofficial” FCC hearings.
On January 16, 2003, the FCC held an “unofficial” public hearing on media ownership at Columbia University; Chairman Michael Powell was in attendance. His opening remarks, however, certainly reflected the lack of interest the Commission had displayed towards public hearings in recent years:
- I would be the first to agree that this kind of public discourse is one of the most, uhh, critical things that the Commission can participate in, an opportunity to hear a wide ranging set of views. Umm, I want to apologize in advance, regrettably I also have to participate today in a, a Rainbow Push Wall Street project later in the day, so I won’t be able to be here all day.
The Chief of the Media Bureau and some other associates would be there all day to hear a full report on the event.
Copps remained adamant that all Commissioners should attend an official FCC hearing before any decisions were made. An editorial in Broadcasting and Cable articulated the heated nature of the eventual decision regarding an official hearing (at least from the Republican standpoint). The article is quoted at length as it includes a variety of points that are relevant:
- FCC Commissioner Michael Copps got his way. … Chairman Michael Powell gave in, saying he would schedule a hearing … in Richmond, Va. … Why Richmond? To save money, says Powell. With the Virginia capital just 100 miles down I-95, the FCC won’t have to pay for a lot of hotel rooms and airline tickets. We understand what Copps is trying to do: Get some thoughts on media-ownership deregulation from the common folk outside of Washington on the theory that wisdom grows proportionately with the distance from Washington. But that’s a romantic notion. Does Copps really think that people in the provinces think much about media consolidation? At best, what you will get in any given town are local fronts for the Washington lobbyists and groups that spend their lives grappling with the issues. In Richmond, you probably would be able to stir up a better discussion on McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign of 1862 than you will on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As Powell hinted in grudgingly agreeing to the hearing, it won’t add much of value to the record. That is in part because this FCC has already taken extraordinary steps to analyze the media marketplace and build a record that will lead not only to reasonable action this spring but also to a new set of rules that may withstand judicial scrutiny. … We understand that big media can be too big and that there may be a need for some restrictions. But the burden of proof is on those who would regulate, who would place hobbles on companies and entrepreneurs for fear of what might happen (there is already a Justice Department and antitrust laws to handle what does happen), who would deprive someone of the right to speak through any medium anywhere. That proof might be out there, but it doesn’t require a road trip to Richmond.
The FCC leases space in the Portals building in southwest Washington, D.C. Construction of the Portals building was scheduled to begin on March 1, 1996. In January 1996 the General Services Administration signed a lease with the building’s owners, agreeing to let the FCC lease 450,000 square feet (42,000 m2) of space in Portals for 20 years, at a cost of $17.3 million per year in 1996 dollars. Prior to its current arrangement, the FCC had space in six buildings by 19th Street NW and M Street NW. The FCC first solicited bids for a new headquarters complex in 1989. In 1991 the GSA selected the Portals site. The FCC had wanted to move into a more expensive area along Pennsylvania Avenue.
- Bleep censor
- Broadcast Standards and Practices (US)
- Censorship of broadcasting in the United States
- Comcast Corp. v. FCC
- FCC Record
- Frequency assignment authority
- Grandfather clause
- International Telecommunication Union
- List of telecommunications regulatory bodies
- National broadband plans from around the world
- Open spectrum
- Part 15 (FCC rules)
- Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
- Public, educational, and government access (PEG)
- “Employee Profile at the FCC”. FCC. July 30, 2013. Retrieved December 31,2014.
- 2016 Budget Estimate FCC Budget Estimates. FCC.
- Cecilia Kang (October 31, 2011). “Obama names FCC commissioners, both agency, Hill veterans”. The Washington Post; Post Tech. Retrieved November 1,2011.
- “2008 Performance and Accountability Report” (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. September 2008.
- “FCC Commissioners”. FCC. Retrieved July 18, 2007.
- 5 Year terms expire June 30 of the subject year.
- “FCC Bureaus & Offices”. Retrieved June 6, 2013.
- “FCC Opens Bureau of Public Safety and Homeland Security”. PCMAG. Retrieved November 19, 2015.
- ERH Report on Chain Broadcasting: May 1941 HTML version
- Boddy, William. Fifties Television: the Industry and Its Critics. University of Illinois Press, 1992. ISBN 978-0-252-06299-5
- Clarke Ingram, “The DuMont Television Network: Historical Web Site”. Retrieved February 1, 2009.
- Gomery, Douglas. “Television Sweeps the Nation: The Story Behind the Pioneering Post-“Freeze” Stations” (From the W. D. “Dub” Rogers, Jr. Television Collection)”. South Plains College. Retrieved June 21, 2008.
- “The End of AT&T”. Celnet. Celnet. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
- Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The ’70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 327. ISBN 0-465-04195-7.
- “Bell Telephone System”.
- “AT&T BREAKUP II : Highlights in the History of a Telecommunications Giant”.latimes.
- Bensky, Larry (June 4, 1997), Living Room : Interview With Comedian George Carlin, Pacifica Radio Archives, retrieved February 18, 2014
- Bensky, Larry (June 4, 1997), PZ0624b Radical Comedians Box Set DISC TWO, Pacifica Radio Archives, retrieved February 18, 2014
- Nekesa Mumbi Moody (February 3, 2004). “Janet Jackson Apologizes for Bared Breast”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 3, 2004.
- Ahrens, Frank (June 8, 2006). “The Price for On-Air Indecency Goes Up”. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 27, 2009.
- “Bill Number S. 193”. Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) from Congressional THOMAS DB. Retrieved April 11, 2005.
- “Robert W. Crandall”. The Brookings Institution.
- “Local Community Radio Act of 2009”. Govtrack.us. October 29, 2009.
- FCC Oversight Hearing (September 17, 2009). “FCC: Unanimous, bipartisan support for LPFM”.
- Rachel M. Stilwell, “Which Public – Whose Interest – How the FCC’s Deregulation of Radio Station Ownership Has Harmed the Public Interest, and How We Can Escape from the Swamp,” 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 369, March 1, 2006.
- Oxenford, David (February 9, 2011). “Broadcast Law Blog: On the 15th Anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, The Effect on Broadcasters is Still Debated”.
- See Rachel M. Stilwell, 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 369, supra.
- “FCC’s CIO started young”. FCW.com. Retrieved May 2014.
- “FCC Names New CIO and Acting Director”. FedScoop Magazine. Retrieved September 2013.
- “Harvard University’s Leadership for a Networked World Program” (PDF).Harvard University’s Leadership for a Networked World Program. Harvard University’s Leadership for a Networked World Program. Retrieved March 2016.
- “Case in Point: Building an Agile Workforce and Enterprise at the FCC”. Case in Point: Building an Agile Workforce and Enterprise at the FCC. Harvard University’s Leadership for a Networked World Program. Retrieved March 2016.
- “David A. Bray (@fcc_cio) – Twitter”. twitter.com.
- “Blog Posts by Dr. David A. Bray”. fcc.gov.
- “David Bray, CIO, Federal Communications Commission”. FCC.gov. Retrieved February 2014.
- “World Economic Forum Young Global Leaders of 2016”. World Economic Forum Young Global Leaders of 2016. World Economic Forum. Retrieved March 2016.
- High, Peter. “Forbes – The Secrets of the Most Social CIO In the World”.Forbes – The Secrets of the Most Social CIO In the World. Forbes. Retrieved March 2016.
- “From Technology Pioneer to Empowering Leader of Change”. From Technology Pioneer to Empowering Leader of Change. Evanta365. Retrieved March 2016.
- Jacobsen, Annie (September 15, 2015). The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top-Secret Military Research Agedncy (1st Edition ed.). Little, Brown and Company. p. Chapter 19. ISBN 978-0316371766. Retrieved March 2016.
- “A government Renaissance man”. A government Renaissance man. Fedscoop. Retrieved March 2016.
- “Public Service Leadership and Civic Innovation in a Ubiquitous Internet Era”. Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved November 2013.
- “FCC CIO David Bray on emerging tech trends”. FedScoop. Retrieved February 2014.
- “On the Importance of Communication”. Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved October 2013.
- “Big Thinkers: Dr. David Bray”. Big Thinkers: Dr. David Bray. i-CIO. Retrieved March 2016.
- “FCC Commissioners 1934-present”. FCC. Retrieved 6 May 2016.
- ASR Registration Search. Retrieved November 4, 2009.
- “Preserving the Open Internet”. fcc.gov.
- “Open Internet”. fcc.gov.
- FCC Launches Inquiry For Annual Broadband Progress Report, FCC, August 6, 2015, Mark Wigfield
- Fifth Review of the Radio Industry, FCC Media Bureau, undated.
- John Dunbar, Senator says media study suppressed “Senator says media study suppressed”, Associated Press, September 18, 2006. Archived January 23, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
- John Dunbar, “Lawyer says FCC ordered study destroyed”, Associated Press, September 14, 2006.
- FCC Refuses to Investigate NSA Program, Predicting Likely Administration Road Blocks Edward J. Markey. May 23, 2006.
- Ferris, David (October 20, 2006). “publish.nyc.indymedia.org | FCC Town Hall Meeting Marked by Concerns over Media Consolidation”. Nyc.indymedia.org. Retrieved March 4, 2012.
- See El Diario La Prensas editorial on media diversity.
- Obama’s Diversity Offensive Against Talk Radio August 30, 2009 By Christopher Ruddy.
- Olga Kharif (October 15, 2008). “FCC’s Kevin Martin Supports Freeing White Spaces”. Business Week. Retrieved October 15, 2008.
- David Gonzalez (October 15, 2008). “FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to allow the use of portable devices on white spaces”. UnWiredView.com. RetrievedOctober 15, 2008.
- Marguerite Reardon (November 4, 2008). “FCC opens free ‘white space’ spectrum”. CNET. Retrieved November 5, 2008.
- FCC opens up wireless ‘white spaces;’ Assessing winners, losers and wild-cards November 5, 2008.
- HR5353 Archived February 28, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
- The FCC Doesn’t Need to Be by Peter Suderman, Reason
- Hansell, Saul (August 2, 2008). “F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage”. The New York Times.
- Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). “Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
- NYT Editorial Board (November 14, 2014). “Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation”. New York Times. RetrievedNovember 15, 2014.
- Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (January 21, 2015). “The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let’s Get It Right”. Wired (website). RetrievedJanuary 20, 2015.
- Weisman, Jonathan (January 19, 2015). “Shifting Politics of Net Neutrality Debate Ahead of F.C.C.Vote”. New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
- Staff (January 16, 2015). “H. R. _ 114th Congress, 1st Session [Discussion Draft] – To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure Internet openness…”(PDF). U. S. Congress. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
- Lohr, Steve (February 2, 2015). “In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility”. New York Times. RetrievedFebruary 2, 2015.
- Lohr, Steve (February 2, 2015). “F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services”. New York Times. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
- Flaherty, Anne (January 31, 2015). “Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that”. AP News. Retrieved January 31, 2015.
- Fung, Brian (January 2, 2015). “Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February”. Washington Post. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
- Staff (January 2, 2015). “FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules”. AP News. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
- Lohr, Steve (February 4, 2015). “F.C.C. Plans Strong Hand to Regulate the Internet”. New York Times. Retrieved February 5, 2015.
- Wheeler, Tom (February 4, 2015). “FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality”. Wired (magazine). Retrieved February 5, 2015.
- The Editorial Board (February 6, 2015). “Courage and Good Sense at the F.C.C. – Net Neutrality’s Wise New Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved February 6,2015.
- Weisman, Jonathan (February 24, 2015). “As Republicans Concede, F.C.C. Is Expected to Enforce Net Neutrality”. New York Times. Retrieved February 24,2015.
- Lohr, Steve (February 25, 2015). “The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice”. New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
- Staff (February 26, 2015). “FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet” (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. RetrievedFebruary 26, 2015.
- Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Lohr, Steve (February 26, 2015). “In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility”. New York Times. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
- Flaherty, Anne (February 25, 2015). “FACT CHECK: Talking heads skew ‘net neutrality’ debate”. AP News. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
- Liebelson, Dana (February 26, 2015). “Net Neutrality Prevails In Historic FCC Vote”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2015.
- Ehrenfreund, Max. “New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality”. Washington Post.
- Ruiz, Rebecca R. (March 12, 2015). “F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- Sommer, Jeff (March 12, 2015). “What the Net Neutrality Rules Say”. New York Times. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- FCC Staff (March 12, 2015). “Federal Communications Commission – FCC 15-24 – In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet – GN Docket No. 14-28 – Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order” (PDF).Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- Reisinger, Don (April 13, 2015). “Net neutrality rules get published — let the lawsuits begin”. CNET. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
- Federal Communications Commission (April 13, 2015). “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet – A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/13/2015”. Federal Register. Retrieved April 13, 2015.
- Stimson, Leslie (November 6, 2013). “IBiquity Illuminates License Fees”. Radio World. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- Greer, Clarke; Ferguson, Douglas (2008). “Factors Influencing the Adoption of HD Radio by Local Radio Station Managers”. The International Journal on Media Management. doi:10.1080/14241270802426725. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- McCullagh D (November 7, 2008) Democratic win could herald wireless Net neutrality. CNET, viewed 2010-06-01.
- Brodkin, Jon (September 20, 2013). “Verizon blocks Nexus 7 and will probably get away with it”. Ars Technica. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- Obar, Jonathan, A.; Schejter, A.M. (2010). “Inclusion or illusion? An analysis of the FCC’s”. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 54 (2): 212–227.doi:10.1080/08838151003735000.
- “Legal Websites and Information”. Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved March 3, 2014.
- “Federal Communications Commission Record”. University of North Texas Libraries. Retrieved March 3, 2014.
- Moss, D.A.; Lackow, J.B. “Rethinking the role of history in law & economics: the case of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927 (working paper)”.
- Mazzocco, D. “Radio’s New Deal: The NRA and U.S. Broadcasting, 1933–1935”.Journal of Radio Studies 12 (1): 32–46. doi:10.1207/s15506843jrs1201_4.
- Risley, F. (1995). “A First Step: The FCC’s Investigation Into Newspaper Ownership of Radio Stations”. Journal of Radio Studies 3: 118–129.doi:10.1080/19376529509361978.
- Slotten, H. (2000). Radio and Television Regulation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Barrow, R (1957). “Network Broadcasting – The Report of the FCC Network Study Staff”. Law and Contemporary Problems 22: 611–625.
- Minow, N (2003). “Television and the Public Interest”. Federal Communications Law Journal 55: 395–406.
- Copps, M. “Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps dissenting” (PDF). Retrieved July 14, 2010.
- McConnell, B. “November 5, 2002”. Broadcasting and Cable.
- Editorial (December 9, 2002). “Onward to Richmond”. Broadcasting & Cable.
- FCC Ends Long Fight, Will Move to Southwest D.C. The Washington Post. January 24, 1996. Financial F01. Retrieved March 5, 2010.
- The FCC Doesn’t Need to Be By Peter Suderman, April 5, 2010
- New Wave: The case for killing the FCC and selling off spectrum By Jack Shafer, January 17, 2007
- FCC Hits Chinese Company C.T.S. Technology Co. Ltd with Record Fine for Selling Signal Jammers from the pcmag
- Harvey J. Levin: Pioneering the Economics of the Airwaves
- The Invisible Resource: Use and Regulation of the Radio Spectrum
- Papers of Robert E. Lee, Commissioner of the FCC, 1953–1981, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library
- The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape Congressional Research Service
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Federal Communications Commission.|
- Official website
- FCC Rules (CFR Title 47) from the Government Printing Office
- FCC in the Federal Register
- The FCC Record from the UNT Digital Library