Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings yesterday accused FCC Commissioner Michael Powell of neglecting his duties to execute the country’s telecommunications policies in favor of an approach that relies on the free markets.

The statements from Hollings (D-S.C.) came during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, which reviewed, and eventually said would give approval to the FCC’s 2003 budget request.

“[A]ll you need to do as the chairman of the FCC is to take care of the laws that we’ve passed, and you have just that responsibility,” Hollings said. “Instead, you seem to abandon that responsibility and assign it to the market.

“I think you’d be a wonderful executive vice president of a chamber of commerce, but not a chairman of a regulatory commission of government level. Are you happy in your job?”

“Extremely,” Powell replied.

Powell acknowledged his administration relied on market forces to help determine regulations but defended such a stance. He does enforce telecommunications laws, but, “I also think that the law sees that there are benefits in market economics for the public interest…I think the public interest confers on the Commission the duty and the obligation to implement the statute where there are ambiguities.”

Though Hollings and Powell debated the role of the FCC and Powell’s administration for several minutes, the discussion was never heated.

In addition to this exchange, Powell was questioned on the NextWave Telecom spectrum case, which is set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and the Tauzin-Dingell Bill, which would make it easier for the RBOCS to offer broadband services.

On Nextwave, Powell said the FCC would argue to the court that spectrum auctions do not establish the government as a creditor, because these auctions don’t give the winners ownership of the spectrum, just the right to use it. As a result, the FCC believes the appeals court erred in finding that the commission had no right to reclaim the airwaves from NextWave, which convinced the court that the spectrum was an asset that was protected under it bankruptcy filing.

“In the context of the Supreme Court case…we argue quite strongly that the DC Circuit failed to have the appropriate deference with regard to the telecommunication policy of the United States and the bankruptcy code should not be interpreted in conflict with that [policy],” he said.

Powell declined to give his opinion about Tauzin-Dingell. He did say the FCC “can make substantial progress in clarifying the regulatory environment and introducing incentives to stimulate broadband deployment that will be meaningful and will have consumer benefits, even within the context of the statute, unchanged by regulation.”