SEPARATE STATEMENT 
OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

In the Matter of: Establishment of Rules Governing 
Procedures to Be Followed When Informal Complaints 
Are Filed by Consumers Against Entities Regulated by the Commission 


I support launching this proceeding, because I believe that our process for 
addressing and resolving consumer complaints needs revision.  That being said, I am not 
convinced that the proposals contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we adopt 
today move the process toward the stated goal of a less burdensome process for 
consumers.  

The FCC has a statutory obligation to enforce the laws under our jurisdiction, 
particularly where the laws affect consumers.  In the industries we regulate, a 
transgression by one company is likely to be brought to our attention, or to the attention 
of the infringing company, by a competitor affected by the transgression.  When the 
violation affects a consumer, however, neither the Commission nor the company is as 
likely to be notified, and the transgression is less likely to be addressed.  As public 
servants, it is our responsibility to ensure that all stakeholders – consumers and corporate 
competitors – have effective access to the Commission’s enforcement procedures.

This proceeding addresses an admirable goal – to simplify the rules by which 
consumers may use the Commission’s good offices to gain redress for their concerns. I 
am concerned, however, that the procedures proposed here may in some cases complicate 
rather than simplify the complaint process for consumers. Were I affiliated with a 
company subject to the Commission’s regulation, this process would not make me 
concerned about complaints coming from consumers. 

The NPRM outlines three different ways that consumers may gain redress for 
their complaints – through direct complaint to the company; through the Commission’s 
proposed informal complaint process; and through the traditional formal complaint 
process.  We need to be crystal clear that these are options and that one process should 
not be a prerequisite for another.  Nor must the exhaustion of one remedy preclude the 
utilization of another.  

In creating a simplified consumer complaint process, we must not create new 
bureaucratic hoops through which consumers must jump before their complaints are 
addressed by this agency.  Nor should we even give the appearance of complicating the 
process. The goal of this proceeding should be lowering the bar for consumer complaints, 
not raising it.  In the redress of consumer complaints, there can be no “one size fits all” 
process.  A consumer who finds an overcharge on his or her phone bill may ask to resolve 
that issue through a call to the phone company, but a consistent pattern of “cramming” 
may not be resolved without the Commission’s proactive intervention. A call to a local 
television station may yield an explanation about the cancellation of a favorite program, 
but the enforcement of the nation’s indecency laws goes beyond being a matter for simple 
private resolution -- it is a responsibility given the Commission by Congress. 
 
As we work through the rulemaking proceeding we commence today, I look 
forward to input from all parts of the community – from consumer advocates and from 
companies.  Each of us as citizens may have occasion to use one or more of these 
complaint processes someday, so I hope as many of us as possible will help us get it right 
as we follow up on this Notice.