[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S4514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FCC'S PAGING FREEZE
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on February 8, 1996, the Federal
Communications Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking which
proposed to fundamentally change the way in which paging systems are
licensed. The FCC adopted a freeze on the filing of paging
applications, which immediately brought about many harmful effects. I
promptly expressed my concerns to the FCC about its actions and asked
Chairman Hundt to do something about the freeze in a letter dated
March, 15, 1996.
I am glad to say that on April 23, 1996, the FCC issued an order
demonstrating it had listened to my concerns and the concerns of the
industry with regard to the paging freeze. The FCC has modified the
freeze so that existing paging carriers can apply to expand their
systems by putting transmitters within 40 miles of stations they
already are operating, so long as these stations were licensed before
the freeze. The FCC also has decided against retroactively applying the
freeze and will now process all applications which were filed before
the February 8 freeze date.
These are two very important steps towards mitigating the harmful
impact of the freeze, and I wish to congratulate the FCC on its
response. However, it has come to my attention there are some
significant shortcomings in the mechanics of the new rules. With minor
clarifications, the FCC could eliminate these shortcomings.
In particular, the industry believes--and several Members of Congress
agree--75 miles would be a more appropriate zone of expansion as
opposed to 40 miles. The increased distance would allow existing paging
businesses to accommodate their customers' immediate needs and respond
to new requests for paging service as factories, hospitals, and
neighborhoods are constructed and the need for paging coverage expands.
Paging companies should be allowed to apply for new transmitters
within 75 miles of any transmitter which has been licensed or which
will be licensed based on an application filed before the freeze. The
point is, many expansion proposals were filed by paging companies more
than 1 year ago, and have been delayed at the FCC. These applications
reflect expansions that were needed months ago. Indeed, these carriers
now are receiving requests for further expansions. If we limit paging
companies to a zone 40 miles from transmitters already licensed and
operating, the only expansion they may be able to achieve would be
adding those locations for which they applied last year. Additional
coverage needs in the coming months will go unmet.
Another problem is created by the FCC's proposal to allow anyone to
file a competing application against the expansion proposals of
existing carriers. The FCC has defended the freeze as a mechanism to
prevent filing by speculators and application mills, many of which use
the application process to defraud consumers out of their life savings.
This is a worthy goal. However, the new rule contains an ironic twist.
If anyone can file a competing application against an existing paging
carrier's expansion, speculation and fraudulent filings will be
encouraged. The application mills that currently are not able to file
applications will now target each and every expansion proposal, because
it will be their only opportunity to practice their unholy trade. This
will allow continued consumer fraud. It also will prevent bona fide
paging companies from expanding their coverage, since any expansion
proposal which is filed against will be held in abeyance and probably
dismissed. This result would nullify the good work of the FCC in
modifying the freeze. I strongly suspect it is an unintended result.
To prevent this anomalous result, the FCC can make minor adjustments
to its freeze modification order: First, allowing a 75-mile expansion
zone; second, allowing the expansion sites to be established within 75
miles of any transmitter granted from an application filed before the
freeze; and third, limiting competing applicants to other carriers.
It is vital the FCC take steps to mitigate the harmful effects of the
freeze. The paging industry provides service to over 34 million
subscribers. Industry members have been encouraged to make considerable
investments to improve their services, and have relied in good faith on
the FCC's published regulations. Paging services are designed to serve
the needs of increasingly mobile customers. To be competitive, these
businesses need to provide their service to the customers where and
when they need it. If a paging service cannot respond to the needs of
its existing and potential customers, it will not survive in this
extremely competitive industry.
This competition has spurred technological advances in what can be
communicated over a pager. No longer is a pager some simple little box
that beeps to let you know you should call your office. Today's pagers
are vehicles for communicating written messages. For example, news
organizations like Reuters now offer periodic summaries of breaking
news stories through pagers. Pagers also provide cost-efficient means
of communicating within large factory complexes. Additionally, we must
not forget the lifesaving contribution these services make when used by
doctors, ambulance crews, and critically ill patients, to summon
assistance in the event of an emergency.
The bottom line, Mr. President, is that this technology must be
allowed to grow. That was the basis for my letter in March. At the same
time, the process must not be so full of loopholes as to allow the
unscrupulous to benefit at the expense of consumers. That is the
challenge faced by the FCC. It has begun meeting the challenge by
modifying its freeze on the filing of paging applicants. The flaws in
its initial proposal should prove easy to address. As chairman of the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I stand
ready to help this process in any reasonable manner.
____________________