Is there some compelling reason to prefer a centralized or a decentralized approach to oversight?
As described in Section II, the division of jurisdiction between the FCC and the states is a unique result of the federalist system adopted by the United States and reflected in the U.S. Constitution. There is no reason to believe that it would make sense for other countries to import this jurisdictional split into their own plans for restructuring their national telecommunications markets. On the other hand, though, dissatisfaction with the results of the U.S. arrangement does not necessarily mean that a centralized process is the best approach. Any decentralized process has some costs associated with it. Some of the costs of the split system that exists in the United States include (1) disagreement (usually resulting in a court battle) about whether the FCC can impose a uniform policy that preempts inconsistent state policies and (2) duplication of effort, as the FCC and the states adopt their own versions of similar rules and policies, and as each of the 50 states and seven territor
Related Questions
- A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT SEEMS UNNECESSARILY BUREAUCRATIC. WE WOULD PREFER A MORE FLEXIBLE, CONSORTIUM APPROACH, CAN WE STILL APPLY?
- Do companies that are successful with S&OP typically have centralized or decentralized operational management?
- Are there any compelling criticisms of the experimental approach?
