In the sea of acronyms that is Washington, D.C.’s regulatory world, it's easy to become disenchanted by the way all the agencies, commissions, committees, working groups and think tanks make regulatory recommendations and decisions. In a heavily regulated industry like telecommunications, there must be a defining line between superfluous bureaucracy and effective governance to promote the implementation of commonsense solutions to our greatest challenges.
In the past, many of the debates around issues where everyone agreed on the outcome, but no one could agree on the best path to get there, were polarizing and inefficient. Industry A, Advocacy Groups B and C, and Public Safety Group D all lobbied Congress or the FCC to adopt their agendas. The applicable agency or legislative body then would make its decision, often in a vacuum, and at least one constituency would be unhappy with the outcome. As a result, losing parties and other interest groups would protest, while deployment would suffer under burdensome regulations derived from a process viewed as non-transparent and highly politicized.
Recent history teaches us that while nothing with so many moving parts will ever be perfect, there is potential for a consensus-based approach that brings all interests to the table, rather than keeping them isolated in their individual silos – delivering a positive model for our industry going forward.
The Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC) might sound like the kind of working group that is yet another D.C. bureaucracy, especially when you hear it's the product of a legislative mandate. However, it has been successful in achieving its main purpose -- developing technical standards and protocols to help wireless carriers voluntarily transmit emergency alerts to their subscribers. What had been a difficult, controversial issue has now cleared the rulemaking process at the FCC, and CMSAAC was integral in shaping consensus.
Established as part of the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act enacted by Congress in late 2006, CMSAAC consists of technical experts from the FCC, public safety engineers and administrators, wireless industry representatives and handset vendors. The beauty of such a forum is that it can leverage the FCC’s resources and bring together the best and brightest minds to develop technically feasible standards and protocols, prior to or in lieu of the issuance of a mandate.
In that environment, CMSAAC has produced results, voting last fall to approve recommendations that set forth the requirements, procedures and protocols for the transmission of emergency alerts by wireless carriers. It's a technically feasible, effective solution developed with input from all parties in equal measure that brings public safety and industry representatives together. When the FCC issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on wireless emergency alerts the following month, it was from a very strong starting point.
As the FCC considers the rules it will adopt, it can draw on the key points developed by consensus of the committee. For example, commercial mobile alerts should be targeted at the county level. After a year of study, the CMSAAC determined currently it is not feasible technologically to "geo-target" such alerts more granularly, and more stringent requirements merely would delay the deployment of a strong commercial mobile alert system (CMAS). While there might have been contention in the past, we know that interested parties have arrived at these positions with new-found appreciation for the difficulties of imposing a more stringent targeting requirement. CMAS is a perfect example of the right way to craft regulation.
A similar committee is helping carve out effective policy positions on the question of access to telecommunications products and services for the disabled. Currently, representatives for regulators, the disabled community, and telecom and consumer electronics vendors are conferring to participate as members of the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC).
TEITAC, which was established by the U.S. Access Board (an independent federal agency formed by mandate of Section 255 of the 1996 Telecom Act), serves a similar purpose to CMSAAC inasmuch as it brings all stakeholders to the table before the regulatory process formally gets underway. TEITAC was instructed to present its consensus recommendations for the refresh of accessibility standards to the Access Board in early April.
While the establishment of TEITAC doesn’t promise constant agreement, it does get industry and potential adversaries talking and on the same page – as an alternative to a drawn-out, contentious rulemaking process or litigation. While the board reserves the right to make its own ruling, TEITAC’s input likely will hold significant weight as the Access Board comes to a decision, which in turn should wield influence over the FCC’s private-sector accessibility standards rulemaking, as it did when this process last occurred, in 1998. The committee’s hard work in balancing the needs of the disabled community with the costs and feasibility of deployment will have a real-world impact on the next generation of communications networks, bringing forth rapid adoption of regulatory standards acceptable to all affected constituencies.
Though their multilettered titles may ring of conventional red tape, CMSAAC and TEITAC aren't just more examples of bureaucracy slowing down progress. They remind some of us that government can facilitate good policy by including all stakeholders. They are the standard by which future collaborations should be measured. They are the right way to regulate.
As president of the Telecommunications Industry Association, Grant Seiffert oversees the policy, standards, tradeshow and marketing efforts for the information and communications technology industry association.
