NEWS
   Commissioner Chong Addresses Federal Communications Bar Association

January 19, 1995
Washington D.C.

     FCC Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong addressed the Federal Communications Bar
Association today.  Commissioner Chong, herself a member of the FCBA, challenged
communications policy makers to "think outside the box" in order to creatively address the
issues facing the communications industry.  She urged policymakers to "have the courage to
sweep out antiquated policies and replace them with innovative ones."  

     In discussing her regulatory philosophy, the Commissioner described herself as a
regulatory pragmatist.  She called for simple, pragmatic regulation that would provide both
flexibility and certainty to regulatees.  She also emphasized the importance of efficient
government and called for narrowly tailored regulations.  

     As a supporter of competitive markets, Commissioner Chong said "we must use our
creativity to reach the long term goal of similar levels of regulation for competitors who
provide similar services.  I look forward to a day when there is full competition -- when any
entity can enter any sector of the communications market and compete according to the same
ground rules."

                                  - FCC -

















                  REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER RACHELLE CHONG

                                TO THE FCBA

                             January 19, 1995



     Good afternoon.  It's a great pleasure to talk again to my fellow FCBA members. 
Last July, many of you welcomed me at a terrific reception.  In November, I met more of
you at Martha's Table, where we snapped green beans and made dozens of peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches together.  I must say, I feel at home with this group, so put your feet
up and let's chat. 

     I thought some of you might be wondering if I have learned anything in my eight
months on the job.  Why, yes.  Yes, I have.   First, I've learned that -- on the rare occasion
that I am at a loss for words at a Commission meeting -- one should always lapse into
California Val-speak.  "Like, you know, I think it's, like, a totally rad item.  Like, you dig,
Mr. Chair-dude?"

     I've also learned that most reporters don't really want to talk about cable
reregulation or the theory of price caps.  They'd rather talk about "Star Trek."  As a
Vulcan might say, "Fascinating, captain.  But highly illogical."

     And when travelling abroad, I've also learned that dignitaries address me oh-so-
formally as "Madame Commissioner."  And my mail comes addressed to the "Honorable
Rachelle Chong."  Hey, in Stockton where I come from, being a "madame" isn't considered
something particularly honorable!

     In truth, what I really have learned is that this is a totally cool, albeit formidable
and tiring, job.  Yes, I'm having the time of my life, and I've found that not taking myself
too seriously is a great way to keep my perspective. 

     I came here today to talk about three things:  first, to lay down a challenge to
communications policymakers and to you;  second, to set forth my regulatory philosophy;
and finally, to muse upon the Commission's processes and to suggest some improvements.


Thinking Outside the Box

     First, the way I see it, the current challenge for communications policymakers is to
have the courage to sweep out antiquated policies and replace them with innovative ones --
ones that will make sense for the Information Age.  

     To meet this challenge, I would like to suggest that policymakers, including our
colleagues on the Hill, strive to do what I call "think outside of the box."  I'm talking here
about a physical box -- B - O - X, the kind that holds things, not the Bell Operating
Companies.  Now, a box may seem like an odd metaphor for a speech on communications
issues.  Please allow me to explain what I mean by this phrase and why it is relevant.

          Before I had the privilege of serving as an FCC commissioner, I was a
communications lawyer in San Francisco, you know that pretty city with all those bridges
and hills and that totally unstoppable football team.  Anyway, in my practice, I learned a
lesson from one of my clients that I wanted to share with you today.

          You see, whenever this client was faced with existing regulations or people's
mindsets that seemed to constrain its ambitious business vision, a common cry of the
company's employees would be, "Think outside of the box!"  When asked about this
curious expression, employees told me this company saying came from a "conceptual block
busting" exercise at a leadership retreat.  It's a puzzle, which I will show to you.  [Fig. 1]  

     It's a connect-the-dot type of puzzle.  There are nine dots in three equally spaced
rows.  There are two rules:  First, you must connect all nine dots by drawing no more
than four straight lines.  Second, once you have placed your pen on the paper to draw the
first line, you cannot lift the pen until you are done drawing all four lines.  Hey, this
puzzle isn't easy.  Here's some typical unsuccessful attempts to solve it.  [Fig. 2]  You see,
the puzzle can only be solved with some daring.  You have to be willing to draw lines that
extend outside of the box created by the nine dots.  Here is one of many answers.  [Fig.
3.]

     The saying "think outside of the box" reminded my client to think boldly and
creatively to deal with the many obstacles facing the company.  It reminded everyone to
challenge traditional thinking, old assumptions, and rigid hierarchies.  It was a call to
imaginatively strive to change outdated laws and regulations to achieve its cutting edge
business vision.

     I believe this manner of approaching a problem -- "thinking outside of the box" --
has particular relevance for us in today's changing communications world.  Far too often,
we find ourselves in a box, so to speak.  Having absorbed traditional notions about
appropriate approaches to policy,  we tend to engage in habitual thought patterns when
considering solutions for the future.

          I fear that the traditional assumptions and thinking that we bring to the job
can act like walls that box us in.  Those walls can constrain our thinking.  They can stifle
our creativity.  They can prevent us from proactively shaping a new regulatory landscape
governing converging communications technologies.  

     But walls can give way if we just push a bit, with enough force and with the
conviction of knowing the wall should come down to make way for something new and
for something better.

     And so my main message today is this:  I encourage us to break out of any "boxes"
that constrain our vision for an exciting future -- a future in which all Americans will
benefit from the Information Age.  We need to push beyond traditional policy approaches
and take a fresh look at the communications world.  We must trust our intuition and our
imagination to help us meet the knotty problems posed in this pivotal era.  So I leave this
topic with a challenge to you to "think outside the box" in the coming years, to dare to be
innovative, so that we can create an Information Age that we all will be proud of.


Regulatory Philosophy

     Let me shift gears slightly now and talk more directly about my role at the
Commission.  As many of you may have noticed, I am clearly the "serious" Commissioner. 
All right, all right, I have tried to liven up the 8th Floor with Aloha Shirts and Halloween
costume parties.  But in addition to this important morale boosting, my staff and I have
been working very hard to promote efficient regulation. 

     I consider myself an independent thinker --  a regulatory pragmatist.  I try to be a
consensus builder among my colleagues.  I have found that many of the problems that the
Commissioners deal with don't lend themselves to easy answers.  You simply can't make
everybody happy.  But, it's the FCC's job to make the hard decisions in the public
interest.

     Because our decisions tend to be difficult, I believe it is important to weigh each
decision against my basic regulatory philosophy.  At our public meetings, I have made it a
point to discuss my decisions in the context of my regulatory philosophy, which I would
like to summarize for you.  

     The first plank is simple, pragmatic regulation.  We must remember that our
regulations have a very real and direct impact on our licensees' businesses.  I realize that
our licensees have their hands full running their communications businesses.  For this
reason, I believe that any regulation we impose should be as simple and pragmatic as we
can make it.   

     Along this same line, my second plank is that our regulations must be flexible
enough keep up with technology.  In the past, I have worked with  clients whose very
livelihoods depended on winning in the marketplace through creative service offerings. 
They developed those offerings by keeping pace with technology.

     One of my most difficult tasks was to tell my former clients that they could not
implement innovative market plans or technology without time-consuming regulatory
approval.  It frustrated them; it frustrated me.  Regulation should not frustrate
entrepreneurial spirit.  Rather, regulations must be flexible enough to keep up with market
and technological changes.

     At the risk of sounding like I am contradicting myself, I also believe that even
flexible regulation must provide certainty.  To me, this means two things.  It means that
our rules should be clear and that they should enunciate a reasonable rationale.  

     It also means that the Commission has an obligation to ensure that our rules are as
legally defensible as possible.  Yes, this is where my lawyer training comes out.  There is
no benefit to regulations that are put into place today -- only to be overturned by the
courts a year later.  Of course, in reality, these two points go hand in hand.  Rules that are
clear and well explained are upheld on appeal.
    
     My next plank has to do with efficiency in government.  In November, Americans
indicated that they want less government interference in their daily lives.  I join in that
call.  To achieve this end, we should tailor our regulation as narrowly as possible to reach
our public interest goal.  Too often, government regulation feeds on itself -- it can grow
like Topsy.  

     Thus, I believe that we must have a regular review of the FCC's regulations to
ensure that our rules still make sense in the current regulatory environment.  Given
convergence, we must look anew at our historical style of regulation and think outside of
the box.  

     We must use our creativity to reach the long term goal of similar levels of
regulation for competitors who provide similar services.  I look forward to a day when
there is full competition -- when any entity can enter any sector of the communications
market and compete according to the same ground rules.   

     We are moving this way.  Recently, we relaxed AT&T tariff regulations so that our
regulations could reflect more competitive market realities.  We are considering relaxing
our TV ownership rules.  We have revamped our CMRS rules to equalize levels of
regulation between competing wireless providers.  I strongly support this work, but I fear
our work may be too slow.

     The final plank in my regulatory philosophy is really an overlay on all our
decisions.  I have been quite active on the international scene thus far, and I have listened
very carefully to our foreign friends, who have much to share with us.  Given that the U.S.
plays an important role as a world leader in the communications field, I believe that we
must consider global impacts in our decisions.  Although many issues that we decide may
seem limited to the domestic scene, many in fact have worldwide impacts.  We must
consider those impacts carefully.


The Commission's Processes

     On to my last subject --  the Commission's processes.  First, let me turn the topic
for a moment from regulations to service -- as in old-fashioned customer service.  One
important concept I learned from my law firm days is the importance of customer service. 
I came to D.C. with the sincere belief that our licensees and the public deserve prompt,
efficient and courteous service from the Commission.  

     To further that objective, my fellow Commissioners and I have encouraged the FCC
staff to keep working to improve our service record -- to eliminate backlogs, to be more
responsive to public information requests, and to minimize burdensome information
requests made to our licensees.  In preparation for this speech, I asked each of the Bureau
and Office Chiefs to tell me what initiatives they are taking  to improve service.   And
here are some highlights of what they told me:  

     The Commission now puts our press releases and daily notices out on the Internet
so that they are more accessible to the public no matter where they are.  As many of you
know, I surf the 'Net too.  So, I recognize that putting more information on the 'Net will
help everyone be more informed on these issues.  

     Several of the Bureaus reported that they have brought people from different
divisions and branches together to work on special projects to reduce those miserable
backlogs and get the work out faster.  In my view, this breaking down of  traditional lines
of command is a terrific example of "thinking outside of the box."  

     The Bureaus also tell me that they have started working with industry groups to
identify ways that we can improve customer service.   As I have said before, I believe that
government should be aware of the practical consequences of regulation.  It is not easy for
us to know what those consequences are; you and your clients should tell us. 

     The Bureaus also reported lots of little changes they have implemented to speed
processing of applications.  For example, the International Bureau tells me that they have
totally eliminated the need to write orders to approve routine matters.  How?  By simply
stamping "granted" on the application!

     Of all the reports I got, my personal favorite was the fact that we now accept credit
card payment of FCC fees and soon, for the payment of forfeitures.  I can see it now: 
"Hmm . . .  This is a pretty serious violation.  Would you like to put that on your Visa,
Mastercard or Discover card?"  

     My point here is that the Commission is aware that there is a need to work
continually to improve our service.  

Eighth Floor Issues

     On the topic of service, I am now going to do something considered somewhat
taboo at the FCC.   I am going to comment on the process of getting action on the Eighth
Floor from the Commissioners.

     Let's first take circulate decisions.  It is no secret that the Commission deals with
many of the issues before it on so-called "circulation."  This means that routine decisions
get sent up to the Commissioners' offices, and they literally "circulate" around the floor to
be voted on without a meeting.  Each Commissioner's office looks at the proposed order
and, in due course, resolves any concerns that they may have, and then enters a vote into
the FCC's  computer.  

     Due to the press of work,  these "routine" circulate decisions tend to slip to the
bottom of the priority list.  I realize, however, that these decisions  are very important to
your clients and their day-to-day operations.  After all, your clients are anxious to have
their licenses granted, to have their transfers or tariffs approved, or to have their disputes
adjudicated.  For several months now, I have been encouraging my fellow Commissioners
and their staffs to put deadlines on circulate items.  If all the offices make this commitment,
the FCC's decisions will be timely. 

     Speaking about timeliness, let's talk about the release of FCC agenda items.  As you
may know, there was a GAO report a little while ago that criticized the FCC for slow
release of its agenda decisions.  I strongly support reform to speed up release of these items
-- preferably within a few days of the public meeting.  

     Now, we have made progress on this in the past few months.  Of the twenty items
decided at the last three Commission meetings, six have been released in eight days or less. 
In fact, two of the orders were released on the day of the meeting.  Moreover, two of the
six items that we voted just last week have already been released.  Now, I admit that we
still have a ways to go, but I want you to know that we are trying.  

     I would also like to make another observation based on my "vast" experience of the
past eight months.  I believe that there are times that the sunshine law does not serve our
decision making process very well.  Especially on big picture or complex matters, the
sunshine law can encumber and even delay our decisionmaking, since not more than two
commissioners can meet at one time outside of a publicly noticed meeting.  

     While I generally support the rationale for the sunshine law, I merely note that in
some cases, it results in inefficient decisionmaking.  I wonder if we can "think outside of
the box" and relieve this situation while safeguarding the purpose of the rule.


     One final thought and I will mercifully end.  From the day I arrived at the
Commission in late May and jumped right into the frying pan of PCS proceedings, I have
been searching ceaselessly for the true meaning of PCS.  I've finally figured it out:  

     PCS stands for "Please call Spock."  

     Thank you for your kind attention.