Should laws adopted by legislators define broad goals, and rules adopted by regulators supply the details?
In general, this is an approach that has been taken in the United States. The Communications Act is a broad, flexible piece of legislation implemented by the rules that the FCC adopts. Significant benefits of this approach include the following: • Frequent legislative action is not required. New and amended legislation is difficult to enact in a free society because consensus is difficult to achieve. Interest groups seek to press their own points of view, often paralyzing the legislative process. With a broad, flexible legislative framework, changes can still occur through action by the regulator. With relatively few legislative changes, the United States (at the national level) has moved from a heavily regulated, monopolistic market to a substantially deregulated, competitive market. • Details are supplied by the expert agency, instead of by legislators who do not and cannot focus their attention on specific communications issues on a regular basis. • As discussed in Section II, the r
Related Questions
- SECURITRE controls appear to be defined per User-ID. Does a facility exist to define rules by groups of User-IDs similar to Top Secret Profiles?
- What are the powers of energy regulators? Can they fine companies if they do not respect their rules?
- What are the state of Michigan boater safety rules for skiing and tubing?
