With all
this talk about draining the Washington, D.C. swamp and its entrenched federal
government occupants, the FCC remains quite enamored with federal preemption of
state and local initiatives. I cannot see a coherent rationale for depriving non-federal
actors of their role as laboratories for innovative regulation and better,
on-site agents. Instead, the FCC--with
increasing frequency--seems to embrace preemption more often than deference to
states and municipalities.
On the
federalist side, Chairman Ajit Pai fiercely endorsed the right of states to
regulate inmate intrastate calling rates, even if the rates reach extortionate
levels. The Chairman gladly defers to
states that have enacted barriers or prohibitions on municipal Wi-Fi and fiber
optic networks.
On the federal
preemption side, both Democratic and Republican majorities at the FCC frequently
foreclose state and local initiatives.
Sometimes preemption prevents extortionate behavior, such as when cities
delay or condition market entry. But
other times, I wonder if the FCC takes a partisan stance rather than a
principled one.
I am
onboard when the FCC attempts to expedite state and local administrative
procedures in granting franchises, access to rights of way and necessary
permits. However, the FCC also wants to constrain,
if not prohibit, non-federal involvement in such diverse matters as privacy,
universal service funding and tower siting.
If state
and local regulators are closer to the people and perhaps better versed in the
issues, why is the FCC so keen on preventing them for serving?
