Government assessment of FCC performance: Recurring patterns and implications for recent reform efforts

Telecommunications Policy

Volumn 22, Issue 4-5, 1998, Pages 409-418

  Napoli, Philip M ^a  

^a Department of Communication ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HISTORY; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PUBLIC POLICY; TELECOMMUNICATION;

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; GOVERNMENT ASSESSMENT;

TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 0032068514     PISSN: 03085961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0308-5961(98)00025-1     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. See Krasnow, E. G., Longley, L. D. and Terry, H. A., The Politics of Broadcast Regulation (3rd ed.). St. Martin's Press, New York, 1982.
2. Weingast, B. R. and Moran, M. J., The myth of runaway bureaucracy: the case of the FTC. Regulation, 1982, 6(3), 34.
3. Krasnow, Longley and Terry, Regulation, op cit. Ref. 1.
4. Emery, W. B., Broadcasting and Government: Responsibilities and Regulations. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI, 1971.
5. Emery, W. B., Broadcasting and Government: Responsibilities and Regulations Ibid, p. 395.
6. Emery, W. B., Broadcasting and Government: Responsibilities and Regulations Ibid, p. 396.
7. FCC Oversight and Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. (18 June 1996);
8. Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee on Commerce, US House of Representatives, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. (18 July 1996);
9. see also, Schiesel, S., At F.C.C. confirmation hearings, emphasis will be on competition, New York Times, 29 September 1997, pp. D1, D10.
10. See Horwitz, R. B., The Irony of Regulatory Reform: The Deregulation of American Telecommunications. Oxford University Press, New York, 1989, p. 29;
11. LeDuc, D. R., Cable Television and the FCC: A Crisis in Media Control. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 29.
12. See Ferejohn, J. A. and Shipan, C. R., Congressional influence on administrative agencies: A case study of telecommunications policy. In Congress Reconsidered (4th ed.), eds. L. C. Dodd and B. I. Oppenheimer, Congressional Quarterly, Washington, 1989, pp. 393-410;
13. Krasnow, E. G. and Shooshan, H. M., Congressional oversight: the ninety-second Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. Federal Communications Bar Journal, 1973, 26, 81-117.
14. Heffron, F., The Federal Communications Commission and broadcast deregulation. In Communications Policy and the Political Process, J. J. Havick, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1983, pp. 39-70;
15. Tunstall, J., Communications Deregulation: The Unleashing of America's Communications Industry. Basil Blackwell, New York, 1986, pp. 245-246.
16. See Krasnow, Longley and Terry, Communications Deregulation: The Unleashing of America's Communications Industry op cit Ref 1;
17. Owen, B. M. and Braeutigam, R., The Regulation Game: Strategic Use of the Administrative Process. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1978.
18. See Williams, W., Impact of commissioner background on FCC decisions, 1975-1990. In Media and Public Policy, ed. R. J. Spitzer. Praeger, Westport, CT, 1993, pp. 43-60.
19. Canon, B. C., Voting behavior on the FCC. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 1969, 13, 587-612;
20. Cohen, J. E., The dynamics of the 'revolving door' on the FCC. American Journal of Political Science, 1984, 30(4), 680-708.
21. Lichty, L. W., The impact of the FRC and FCC Commissioners' background on the regulation of broadcasting. Journal of Broadcasting, 1962, 6, 97-110;
22. Williams, Journal of Broadcasting, op. cit. Ref. 12.
23. Berner, R. O., Constraints on the Regulatory Process: A Case Study of Regulation of Cable Television. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1976;
24. Cohen, Constraints on the Regulatory Process: A Case Study of Regulation of Cable Television op. cit. Ref. 13;
25. Gormley, W. T., A test of the revolving door hypothesis at the FCC. American Journal of Political Science, 1979, 23(4), 665-683;
26. Lichty, American Journal of Political Science, op. cit. Ref. 14.
27. See Horwitz, American Journal of Political Science, op. cit. Ref. 8, 31-34.
28. See McChesney, R. W., Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle for Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935. Oxford University Press, New York, 1994;
29. see also, Streeter, T., Selling the Air: A Critique of the Policy of Commercial Broadcasting in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.
30. See Braun, M. J., AM Stereo and the FCC: A Case Study of a Marketplace Shibboleth. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1994;
31. LeDuc, AM Stereo and the FCC: A Case Study of a Marketplace Shibboleth op. cit. Ref. 8;
32. Mosco, V., Broadcasting in the United States: Innovative Challenge and Organizational Control. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1979.
33. LeDuc, Broadcasting in the United States: Innovative Challenge and Organizational Control op. cit. Ref. 8, pp. 27-28.
34. Emery, Broadcasting in the United States: Innovative Challenge and Organizational Control op. cit. Ref. 4, p. 393.
35. Besen, S. M., Krattenmaker, T. G., Metzger, R. A., Jr., Woodbury, J. R., Misregulating Television: Network Dominance and the FCC. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984, p. 179;
36. see also, Napoli, P. M., Regulatory Behavior and the Federal Communications Commission: An Analysis of Broadcast Policy Making and Enforcement Activity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
37. The materials analyzed here date back to the 1932 report entitled The Federal Radio Commission: Its History, Activities and Organization, a primarily descriptive report prepared for both Congress and the president, and run up to the 1995 report entitled Creating a Federal Communications Commission for the Information Age, prepared for the president's Commission on Reinventing Government. A total of 18 separate government-commissioned reports were included in the analysis. Seven of the 18 government-sponsored analyses of the FCC were prepared for the president, while the remaining eleven were prepared for Congress. Whether congressionally or presidentially sponsored, often these analyses of the FCC were part of a much larger context, such as analyses of the regulatory agencies in general or discussions of the future of American telecommunications policy.
38. U.S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of Government, The Hoover Commission Report on Organization of the Executive Branch of Government. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1949.
39. Golub, W. W., Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1948, pp. 11-21-11-45, IV-10.
40. Golub, W. W., Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions Ibid., p. III-3.
41. Golub, W. W., Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions Ibid., p. II-5.
42. See Cohen, Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions op. cit. Ref. 13;
43. Williams, Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions op. cit. Ref. 12.
44. Golub, Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions op. cit. Ref. 24, p. III-34.
45. Golub, Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions ibid., p. III-35.
46. Golub, Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions ibid., p. III-39.
47. Golub, Staff Report on the Federal Communications Commission: Committee on Independent Regulatory Commissions Ibid, p. III-56.
48. Federal Regulation and Regulatory Reform: Report by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1976, p. 276;
49. McMahon, R. S., Regulation of Broadcasting: Half a Century of Government Regulation of Broadcasting and the Need for Further Legislative Action: Report to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1958, pp. 154-157;
50. Study on Federal Regulation, Vol. 2: Congressional Oversight of Regulatory Agencies: Report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1977;
51. U.S. General Accounting Office., Organizing the FCC for Greater Management and Regulatory Effectiveness: Report by the Comptroller General of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1979, pp. 44-47;
52. U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Communications Commission: Strategic Focus Needed to Improve Information Resources Management: Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Government, Information, Justice, and Agriculture, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1990.
53. Federal Regulation, op. cit. Ref. 32, p. 246;
54. Graham, J. M. and Kramer, V. H., Appointments to the Regulatory Agencies: The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission (1949-1974): Report to the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1976;
55. U.S. General Accounting Office, FCC Needs to Monitor a Changing International Telecommunications Market. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1983;
56. U.S. General Accounting Office, Legislative and Regulatory Actions Needed to Deal with a Changing Domestic Telecommunications Industry. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1971;
57. U.S. General Accounting Office (1976), Legislative and Regulatory Actions Needed to Deal with a Changing Domestic Telecommunications Industry op. cit. Ref. 32, pp. 78, 90-98.
58. Graham and Kramer, Legislative and Regulatory Actions Needed to Deal with a Changing Domestic Telecommunications Industry op. cit. Ref. 33, p. 402.
59. Landis, J. M., Report on Regulatory Agencies to the President-Elect: Report to the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1960, pp. 36, 53.
60. Landis, J. M., Report on Regulatory Agencies to the President-Elect: Report to the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Ibid., p. 53.
61. President's Task Force on Communications Policy, Final Report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1968, pp. 2-22.
62. President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization, A New Regulatory Framework: Report on Selected Independent Regulatory Agencies. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1971, pp. 4-21.
63. Richards, M. B., Creating a Federal Communications Commission for the Information Age: Report of the Special Counsel to the Commission on Reinventing Government. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1995.
64. Loevinger, L., The sociology of bureaucracy. The Business Lawyer, 1968, 24, p. 9.
65. President's Communications Policy Board, Telecommunications: A Program for Progress. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1951, p. 206.
66. Bureau of the Budget, Study of Federal Communications Organization (December, 1968). Included in Appendix of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 (Office of Telecommunications Policy): Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives. 91st Cong., 2nd. Sess. (9-10 March 1970), pp. 79-133;
67. President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 (Office of Telecommunications Policy): Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives op. cit. Ref. 38;
68. President's Task Force on Communications Policy, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 (Office of Telecommunications Policy): Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives op. cit. Ref. 37. These reports, along with a later report by Nixon aide Clay Whitehead became the basis for the Office of Telecommunications Policy. One of the key objectives of the OTP was to enhance executive branch representation in FCC Proceedings;
69. see Lucoff, M., Telecommunications Management and Policy: Who Governs? Journalism Monographs, 1977, 51 (November);
70. see also Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 (cited above).
71. Landis, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 op. cit. Ref. 35, p. 85.
72. Landis, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 Ibid., p. 36.
73. Landis, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 Ibid., p. 33.
74. Golub, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 op. cit. Ref. 24, p. IV-55.
75. McMahon, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 op. cit. Ref. 32, p. 160.
76. McMahon, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 Ibid., p. 163.
77. McMahon, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 Ibid.
78. Graham and Kramer, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970 op. cit. Ref. 33, p. 421.
79. Federal Regulation, op. cit. Ref. 32, p. 276.
80. Federal Regulation, Ibid., p. 246.
81. Federal Regulation, Ibid., p. 439.
82. Study on Federal Regulation, Vol. 4 - Delay in the Regulatory Process: Report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1977.
83. U.S. General Accounting Office (1979), Study on Federal Regulation, Vol. 4 - Delay in the Regulatory Process: Report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, op. cit. Ref. 32, p. ii.
84. Schwartz, B., The Professor and the Commissions. A. A. Knopf, New York, 1959. Schwartz was eventually fired by Congress from his position, he believes due in part to the fact that his investigation was likely to reveal that 'a good part of the problem ... stems from the Congress itself (p. 235).
85. Ferejohn, J. A. and Shipan, C. R., Congress and telecommunications policy. In New Directions in Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 1-Regulatory Policy: Telephony and Mass Media, ed. P. R. Newburg. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1989, p. 301.
86. President's Advisory Concil on Executive Organization, New Directions in Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 1-Regulatory Policy: Telephony and Mass Media, op. cit. Ref 38.
87. U.S. General Accounting Office (1979), New Directions in Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 1-Regulatory Policy: Telephony and Mass Media, op. cit. Ref. 32.
88. Bureau of the Budget, New Directions in Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 1-Regulatory Policy: Telephony and Mass Media, op. cit. Ref. 42;
89. President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization, New Directions in Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 1-Regulatory Policy: Telephony and Mass Media, op. cit. Ref. 38;
90. President's Task Force on Communications Policy, New Directions in Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 1-Regulatory Policy: Telephony and Mass Media, op. cit. Ref. 37.
91. Why Congress would approve the creation of an executive office that could potentially weaken congressional influence on communications policy matters is a bit unclear. According to Will, Congress did not sufficiently review the OTP plan, essentially 'signing a 'blank check" for the Nixon administration (see Will, T. E., Telecommunications Structure and Management in the Executive Branch of Government, 1900-1970. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1978, p. 138). However, conflict with Congress did ultimately contribute to the rapid demise of the OTP;
92. see Esplin, F. C., Looking back: Clay Whitehead's OTP. Public Telecommunications Review, 1975, 3(2), 17-22.
93. See Federal Communications Commission, 39th Annual Report, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1973, p. 21.
94. See Will, 39th Annual Report, op. cit. Ref. 61, pp. 136-137.
95. Kittross, J. M., Administration of American Telecommunications Policy. Arno Press, New York, 1980, pp. iv-v.
96. Reorganization Plan No. 11 of 1950: Providing for the Reorganization of the FCC, 81st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1950.
97. Cox, K. A., The Federal Communications Commission. Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review, 1970, 11, p. 602.
98. See Dyk, T. B. and Goldberg, R. E., The First Amendment and congressional investigations of broadcast programming. Journal of Law and Politics, 1987, 3, 625-663;
99. Spievack, E. B., Presidential assault on telecommunications: Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1970. Federal Communications Bar Journal, 1970, 23(3), 155-181.
100. Federal Communications Commission Oversight and Reform: Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, 104th Cong., 2nd. Sess. (19 March 1996);
101. Reform of the Federal Communications Commission: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, 104th Cong., 2nd. Sess. (27-28 March 1996).
102. Gilroy, A. A. and Smith, M. S. CRS Report for Congress: The Federal Communications Commission: What Role for the Future? Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, 1996.
103. Federal Communications Commission Oversight and Reform, CRS Report for Congress: The Federal Communications Commission: What Role for the Future? op. cit. Ref. 68, p. 22.
104. CRS Report for Congress: The Federal Communications Commission: What Role for the Future? Ibid., pp. 25-27.
105. FCC Modernization Act of 1996, H. R. 3957, 14th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1996).
106. Egan, B. L. Abolish the FCC. Telecommunications Policy, 1996, 20(7), 469-474;
107. Heritage Foundation. Rolling Back Government. Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, 1995;
108. Progress and Freedom Foundation. The Telecom Revolution: An American Opportunity. Progress and Freedom Foundation, Washington, DC, 1995;
109. Read, W. H. and Weiner, R. A., FCC reform: Governing requires a new standard. Federal Communications Law Journal, 1996, 49(2), 289-324.
110. See Gilroy and Smith, Federal Communications Law Journal, op. cit. Ref. 69, p. 10.
111. See Calvert, R. L. and Weingast, B. R., Runaway bureaucracy and congressional oversight: Why reforms fail. Policy Studies Review, 1982, 1 (3), 557-564.