Why Does FCC Spending Keep Growing?

by on February 6, 2007 · 8 comments

Time for a quick reality check. The Federal Communications Commission regulates older media sectors and communications technologies: broadcast radio, broadcast TV, telephones, satellites, etc. These sectors and technologies are growing increasingly competitive and face myriad new, unregulated rivals. What, then, is wrong with this picture?
TestFCCBudget_copy.JPG

Seriously, I just don’t get it. Why does the FCC’s budget keep growing without constraint? Why does it need $313 million and nearly 2,000 bureaucrats to regulate industries and technologies that could do just fine, thank you very much, without endless meddling from DC. It seems to me like all those unregulated rivals are doing just fine without the FCC serving as market nanny, so why not cut the flow of funds to the FCC for awhile and see what happens?

This agency needs to be put on a serious diet. There’s just no excuse for this level of spending in an era when the market is growing more competitive. Check out the entire FCC 2008 budget here if you are interested in their profligate spending habits.

(And just imagine how much more the agency will be spending once Net neutrality regulations get on the books!)

  • http://www.manifestdensity.net tom

    I’m not sure I understand your argument. You’re saying that as a market’s size increases, the associated regulatory agency should be expected to… shrink?

    I’m not a big fan of the FCC, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

  • http://www.manifestdensity.net tom

    I’m not sure I understand your argument. You’re saying that as a market’s size increases, the associated regulatory agency should be expected to… shrink?

    I’m not a big fan of the FCC, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

  • PJ Doland

    Test.

  • PJ Doland

    Test.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    As industries are deregulated, the size of the agency that oversaw the regulated industry should shrink, but apparently it takes more federal employees to do nothing than to do something. For each former regulator, you need two deregulators to keep him from doing something.

    Network neutrality is a full employment act for soon-to-be-unemployed telecom regulation wonks.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    As industries are deregulated, the size of the agency that oversaw the regulated industry should shrink, but apparently it takes more federal employees to do nothing than to do something. For each former regulator, you need two deregulators to keep him from doing something.

    Network neutrality is a full employment act for soon-to-be-unemployed telecom regulation wonks.

  • Anonymous

    While in general I desire less regulation, and I do not debate the lessening need for this particular body… the growth percentage does not seem out of line with inflation, at least for the last couple years (approx. 300 million at 4% goes to 312 million). Or am I missing something?

  • Anonymous

    While in general I desire less regulation, and I do not debate the lessening need for this particular body… the growth percentage does not seem out of line with inflation, at least for the last couple years (approx. 300 million at 4% goes to 312 million). Or am I missing something?

Previous post:

Next post: