State Regulators
Commissioner Miller suggested two basic principles to guide the discussions. First, the partnership must be founded on a mutual respect for the strengths that each party brings. Congress and the Administration should establish national policies on matters that affect the well- being of citizens generally, such as, in telecommunications, affordable access and removal of entry barriers. Similar to the workings of an automobile engine, regulation needs the cushioning effect of a head gasket, which state commissions are uniquely qualified to achieve based on their particular knowledge of their jurisdictions. In short, the federal government can design a new engine to "carry us down the information highway, but it should not build an engine without a head gasket."
A second principle advanced by Mr. Miller centers on the need to examine the suitability of current, often deeply embedded regulatory assumptions. A better approach than the attempted distinction between interstate and intrastate services set forth in the 1934 Communications Act would be to identify three jurisdictional "buckets": one solely for federal matters, one solely for state matters, and a third which the two jurisdictions should discuss. Using the principles articulated in the Agenda for Action as a basis for discussion, some matters (such as spectrum allocation, federal copyright laws, and federal procurement) are clearly the province of the federal government, but many matters are of mutual interest. In particular, promoting investment through expanded competition, expanding the concept of universal service, and promoting interoperability and openness require a state-federal colloquy.
Intergovernmental discussions should also be held on such issues as the need for a meaningful transition to competition and deregulation, taking into account the offsetting goals of universal service and universal access; the desirability of anticompetitive safeguards beyond antitrust enforcement; and a focus on consumer choice rather than an industrial policy favoring specific technologies. Commissioner Miller concluded his remarks by stating that at a very broad level there seemed to be no significant philosophical differences between Mr. Irving and him, but that specific topics and issues needed to be mutually addressed.