Social Policy,

Everyone is for it.

It means different things to different people. There is a fine line between business and social policy.

The next time you are in the grocery store, try striking up a conversation with a cashier about social policy. Your favorite topic: education, taxes, environment, you name it. See if it will get you a discount on your bill.

Not a chance.

Try it with the hotel owner here.

Or, perhaps a taxi cab driver.

When private, anonymous individuals speak with other private individuals, there is education and entertainment value. But social policy does not change directly.

Nor do business relations.

It is the rare company that says, I will give you a better deal if you agree with my social policy.

It is not what Americans want. We expect, and we demand, that we are treated the same as the next person in line, regardless of beliefs or donations.

The same is true when we as private individuals address most members of the government.

If a police officer is writing a ticket for a parking violation on your car, it probably won't do you much good to strike up a conversation on the environment - or even on police

retirement funds.

Try stepping in front of a traffic court judge and seeing how much good a few comments on social policy will do for you.

It might do you some good as a private citizen to discuss social policy with a college professor or even a legislator-at the federal, state, or local level.

They deal with social policy issues all of the time. But they are also professional speakers and professional listeners. They listen to lots of people. What can they do for you based on your views of social policy? Give you a better grade in class? Change a law? Yeah, right!

Each of us would be profoundly dismayed if the cop on the beat or the judge in the court room or any government official treated people differently depending on their beliefs or social policy donations. Americans demand to be treated the same regardless of their beliefs by their government officials.

All of this may sound profoundly obvious, except if you are from Washington, D.C.

It seems that some people in Washington believe that broadcasters are innately evil. Left to their evil inclinations, they would do all sorts of bad things.

Fortunately, there is the FCC to straighten them out. We keep the broadcasters on the straight-and-narrow. We also save every community in America from being boarded up by forcing the broadcasters to do good deeds to prevent communities from vanishing.

Now, of course, broadcasters are fun-loving people. And because they have to deal with the FCC on an ongoing basis, they are more than mildly deferential.

And they are more than a little masochistic.

They seem to grow in stature the more pain the FCC inflicts on them.

And like the Ancient Mariner in the famous Rhyme, they wander the world telling whoever will listen about their journey from sin to redemption.

They will show you their FCC-sanctioned video cassette of good deeds, how many hours of volunteer work, how much value for public service announcements, how much raised for charities.

I have told the broadcasters never to show me one of their God-forsaken lists of good deeds.

-Yes, they are heavily regulated, perhaps more than any

other industry.

-Yes, they do a lot of good deeds.

-No, there is no link between the two.

The broadcast industry has also been the handmaiden witting or unwitting - of regulatory social policy.

You know what regulatory social policy is.

It's where the law will not permit a regulator to engage in social policy directly so you engage in it indirectly.

(1) Equal employment opportunity. By law, primarily at

EEOC & DOL at federal level. But FCC imposes EEO on broadcasters as well.

(2) Public service announcements.

(3) Free air time for politicians.

(4) Access for disable.

(5) Minority ownership.

(6) You name it, the broadcasters do it.

And, if you are a broadcaster, remember, SMILE, because it is in the public interest.

Now consider the telecom industry.

It suffers from social policy regulation as well.

Subsidies from business to residential users.

Subsidies for computer manufacturers and a few hundred million for schools and libraries.

A few hundred million for the poor.

At least telecom companies don't walk around with video cassettes of your good deeds.

But the social policy regulation is still there. Layered on top of all of the good deeds that companies do as simple good citizens.

How do we get to all of this social regulation? Some of it is required by law. For that, you must simply grin and bear it.

But some of it comes not from law but from regulators themselves. Remember that I began with the futility of an individual or business approaching a government official and expecting that personal views would change policy outcomes.

What if the tables were turned? What if the government officials approach private business and say, "Here are my policy views. What can you do to help?

If the mere question makes anyone in this room squirm-good! It should!

It is wrong to expect personal views will influence the decisions of government officials.

It is perhaps even more wrong to think that the far-afield personal views of a government official would affect private actions.

The opportunities for mischief are endless.

The former head of a major federal agency recently published a book in which he brags about promoting social policy by asking private businesses he regulated to follow suit.

Or, how about the high-ranking official at the FCC who recently chastised the broadcast industry for losing "good will" at the FCC by pushing legislation on Capitol Hill to roll back FCC social policy regulation.

"Good will?"

Do some industries have more or less good will at the FCC?

Do some businesses have more or less good will at the FCC?

Does the regulatory treatment of an industry depend on good will?

Can social policy contributions remedy deficiencies elsewhere?

Is social policy regulation a function of good will?

I tremble to think of the answers to these questions.

I was recently at the national convention for the National Association of Broadcasters. After a session in which I criticized the FCC for exercising merger review authority outside of the normal contours of law, someone asked me: "Commissioner, if the DOJ and FTC won't enforce antitrust law, who else can be turned to? Why do you object to the FCC filling the void -the antitrust law?"

That is precisely the problem. Regulators, whether the FCC or elsewhere, are not there to fill the "void" where other agencies of government have failed. Regulators are there to do their job.

Not someone else's job.

Not a job that they invent.

But a job that is written in law.

And that law only rarely includes social policy for regulators.

When regulators give speeches about far afield social

Policy, Americans should tremble.

There is only one primary social policy regulators should promote follow the law.

Follow it narrowly, dispassionately, independently.

If the law is broken, have the legislators fix it, not the regulators.

If social policy is broken, have the legislators fix it, not the regulators.

All of this may sound profoundly obvious, except if you are in the broadcast industry or if you are from Washington, D.C.

It seems that some people in Washington believe that broadcasters are innately evil. Left to their evil inclinations, they would do all sorts of bad things.

Fortunately, there is the FCC to straighten them out. Not only do we keep the broadcasters on the straight-and-narrow; we also save every community in America from being boarded up by forcing the broadcasters to do good deeds to prevent communities from vanishing.

Now, of course, broadcasters are fun loving people. And because they have to deal with the FCC on an ongoing basis, they are more than mildly deferential.

And they are more than a little masochistic.

They seem to grow in statute the more pain the FCC inflicts on them