Paglin, Max D. A Legislative History of the Communications Act of NewYork: Oxford University Press, Hobson, eds. Silver Springs,Md. Zarkin, Kimberly A. Skorup, Brent. Breland, Ali. Sergi, Joe. Brian Caterino. Federal Communications Commission [electronic resource].
Other articles in Governmental Entities and Activities. Want to support the Free Speech Center? Donate Now. Fox Federal Communications Commission v.
Bagdikian, Ben H. The New Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press, Kellner, Douglas. But the agency does far more than police nudity and off-color jokes on the air, and few realize just how much it regulates, and therefore how much it matters.
From its beginning, the FCC has been charged by Congress with a broad mandate to enforce an even broader standard: regulating the country's communications networks according to "the public interest. Nearly every American uses the communication networks regulated by the FCC, yet despite the immediate relevance of its actions, few people understand what the agency does. The labyrinthine regulatory system it has created over eight decades has obscured its influence from all but a few specialists, making effective oversight nearly impossible.
And that is intentional: The FCC's superficially complex proceedings minimize the "headline risk" that can bring congressional accountability and perhaps even the revocation of authority. As a result, reviewing modern communications laws and regulations is akin to pawing through an eccentric antique dealer's basement: One stumbles upon artifacts that no one quite remembered were there and that no one can quite justify. The FCC's broad grant of authority, combined with its impenetrable complexity, means that it has nearly boundless ability to distribute favors and shape the trillion-dollar technology and media industries.
The FCC's tendencies, in the words of economist and judge Richard Posner, result in "unprincipled compromises of Rube Goldberg complexity among contending interest groups viewed merely as clamoring suppliants who have somehow to be conciliated.
The FCC tentatively encouraged that costly process for a few years before rescinding crucial permissions under intense political pressure. The bureaucratic shift immediately bankrupted LightSquared and deprived Americans of the benefits of another major wireless operator. The opacity of the FCC has become even more problematic since, at the urging of President Obama, the nominally independent agency has voted itself unprecedented authority to regulate the internet in the name of so-called "net neutrality.
And the agency's recent actions again threaten the First Amendment rights of new media, such as online portals and search engines. The FCC's ad hoc enforcement of legacy regulations has done untold damage to consumer interests for decades, and the agency's new claim of authority to regulate broadband much like the old Bell telephone monopoly is the culmination of its missteps. We need to rethink the necessity of both the agency's economic and noneconomic responsibilities. In this era of growing competition, technological change, and content abundance, Congress needs to pave a path toward not only limiting the agency's power over the internet but eliminating most FCC authority outright.
According to Randy May, who formerly served as associate general counsel at the FCC, there are nearly statutory provisions that direct or authorize the FCC to act based on its understanding of the "public interest.
This standard is so broad and all-encompassing that it shields the agency from legal accountability: While Congress does give the FCC more specific directives, the agency can always point to the pervasive public-interest standard, ensuring that court review will remain limited. The public-interest standard was first applied to mass media over 90 years ago.
In the early s, radio broadcasting took the world by storm. For the first time, millions of people could simultaneously enjoy a variety of widely disseminated information, like election results, live coverage of baseball games, and music. There was no regulatory body overseeing radio yet, and under existing law broadcasters had simply to register their use of the airwaves in a particular geographic location with the secretary of commerce, an ambitious man named Herbert Hoover.
In , however, the acting Attorney General, William Donovan, abruptly declared that registration system untenable. Congress authorized the new FRC to operate for "the public interest, convenience, or necessity," but the agency's origin shows that it had quite different objectives from the very beginning. Clemson University economist Thomas Hazlett argues that the creation of a radio agency with the authority to license mass media satisfied two powerful interest groups.
First, an agency with broad discretion satisfied regulators and the political class, who could now "guide" a powerful new medium. Second, the agency found support from the major players in the radio industry, who could afford to placate regulators with public-interest obligations in return for protection from economic rivals. It is a mistake to assume the congressmen who promulgated this vague standard in the s thought that it had any true significance.
Contemporaries knew the agency had few legal restraints. Louis Caldwell, the first general counsel of the FRC, described the standard in as akin to instructing a radio czar to "do the best he can. It reflected the Progressive Era beliefs that laissez faire was unfair, wasteful, and chaotic, and that technocrats needed freedom to organize complex economic systems efficiently and extract obligations from the regulated industries.
While the standard was open-ended, the creators of the new FRC did not expect the agency to have unlimited power. Where regulators overreach, courts can and do cabin their discretion. Donovan noted that the FRC's public-interest standard "has to be marked out and developed by a line of administrative and judicial decisions. Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, for instance, bars "contract[s] Rather than empower the antitrust agencies with that immense discretion, courts applied something like common-law standards to the statute to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power.
Despite the passage of decades, however, neither the FRC which became the FCC in nor the courts have put meaningful limits on what the agency can do under the nebulous public-interest standard. It is this tremendous discretion that leaves communications law so full of kludges. Over the history of the FCC, its officials have stumbled from one agency-created regulatory crisis to another, and the standardless vacuum has invited an easily manipulated, politicized, and arbitrary process.
Reflecting its New Deal-era origins, the FCC seeks to regulate a fairly static competitive landscape to ensure the orderly deployment of wire and wireless services according to its own standards and categories. The FCC has a technology-specific, compartmentalized doctrine for each area it regulates, including telephone, over-the-air broadcasting, cable, direct broadcasting satellite, and interactive computer services.
The regulatory rigidity that results from this compartmental approach slows or halts competition and innovation, and whole industries are stymied as the agency tries to maintain artificial distinctions and protect established practices from competitive upheaval. This competitive upheaval is what Joseph Schumpeter termed "creative destruction," and even though it is the origin of tremendous innovation and numerous consumer benefits, it is anathema to an industry-specific agency like the FCC.
As former FCC commissioner Glen Robinson has noted, the FCC has consistently concluded that the best way to eliminate the risk of "unfair competition" is to eliminate competition altogether. One of the best examples of the FCC's opposition to competition that undermines its regulatory silos was the FCC's cozy but counterproductive relationship with the Bell telephone monopoly. Use precise geolocation data.
Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance. Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. The FCC maintains standards and consistency among types of media and methods of communication while protecting the interests of consumers and businesses.
The agency is accountable to U. Congress and its actions are monitored closely by investors. As noted above, the Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency that answers to the U. It was established in as part of the Communications Act, which is a law regulating domestic and foreign wire and radio communications.
The law was further expanded to include satellite, television, and broadband communications. The agency's reach extends across the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and every U. The FCC is considered the key authority in the United States that oversees communications law, regulation, and innovation in the technology sector. Its mission is to help advance the global communications industry through:.
The agency is headed by a chair, who is one of five commissioners appointed by the president. Each commissioner is confirmed by the Senate and serves a five-year term. Nearly 1, employees work collectively work the commissioners.
They are divided into numerous bureaus and offices that focus on different aspects of the commission's duties. The FCC's actions affect public and private companies that engage in communications. Because of this, its decisions are closely monitored by stock market investors. In its work facing economic opportunities and challenges associated with rapidly evolving advances in global communications, the agency capitalizes on its competencies in: Promoting competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities Supporting the nation's economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation's communications infrastructure Leadership The agency is directed by five commissioners who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.
Organization The commission is organized into bureaus and offices , based on function see also Organizational Charts of the FCC. Bureau and office staff members regularly share expertise to cooperatively fulfill responsibilities such as: Developing and implementing regulatory programs Processing applications for licenses and other filings Encouraging the development of innovative services Conducting investigations and analyzing complaints Public safety and homeland security Consumer information and education Rules and Rulemakings The FCC's rules and regulations are in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations CFR , which are published and maintained by the Government Printing Office.
Advisory Committees In Congress passed the Federal Advisory Committee Act to ensure that advice by advisory committees is objective and accessible to the public. List of all of FCC advisory committees, task forces, councils and other groups.
0コメント