FCC ‘Catering to Big Business’ in Broadband Meetings, Free Press Says
Free Press took its objections to closed-door meetings at the FCC to discuss key broadband issues (CD June 17 p1) to the readers of The Washington Post, running a full-page ad in the paper Wednesday. The group has been generally supportive of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in the past. Public interest group officials told us they are unhappy they are not at the table as a possible deal is discussed at the agency.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"It looks like yet another federal agency is catering to big business behind closed doors and ignoring the American public,” said Free Press President Josh Silver. “It’s inexcusable that the FCC is brokering backroom deals with industry lobbyists, while pretending to run a transparent process. After the financial crisis and the oil spill, you would think the Obama administration would have learned a lesson. But we won’t stand by and watch the Internet go the way of Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico.”
Meanwhile, both Free Press and Public Knowledge were critical of a statement released last Tuesday by FCC Chief of Staff Eddie Lazarus on the meetings. “We are appalled at the idea put forward by the FCC Chief of Staff that there will be no disclosure (ex parte) requirements for meetings the Commission staff will hold on topics directly related to ongoing FCC proceedings,” Public Knowledge said. “To say, as Mr. Lazarus did, that other approaches outside of the open proceedings would not be subject to disclosure requirements is simply not acceptable in any circumstance, much less in an Administration and an FCC which have promised new levels of transparency."
Lazarus posted notice of the meeting on the FCC’s Blogband. The Blog entry was met with several critical comments. “You won’t mind showing us meeting minutes then, huh?” said one comment. “Mr. Lazarus, please answer. How can you defend closed-door meetings of this kind when the Obama administration has been promising transparency?” asked Mark Johnson, one of the commenters. “This situation reminds me of [former Vice President] Dick Cheney meeting with energy company representatives in private and drafting legislation.” Another commenter questioned why the FCC’s ex parte rules don’t require participants in the meetings to outline their arguments before the agency.
Stifel Nicolaus, meanwhile, said in a research note neither the meetings at the FCC or on the Hill starting Friday are likely to lead to enactment of legislation this year. “We see these recent meetings, which we believe are ongoing, as a serious attempt by the agency and the large companies to move the ball forward to avoid FCC Title reclassification, consistent with what we expected and with no downside attached to the effort (other than the flap over whether the meetings are being held in ‘private'),” the note said. “We understand that the discussions have focused in large part on the net neutrality issues, and have been productive. That said, we continue to believe that it is unlikely that targeted legislation will be enacted this year.”