"threatening to enact new regulations may be more effective than actually enacting them".
Tim -- seems to be a rehash of the "bully pulpit" approach, where regulators get firms to do what they want without actually having to go through the messiness of adopting an actual regulation.
I thought Adam Thierer pretty thorougly destroyed this argument in his NRO piece earlier this year (in the context of Kevin Martin's push for cable a la carte):
"...conservatives typically oppose the use of the so-called "enlightening power of the Bully Pulpit," which involves government shaking down private companies for favors. For example, when regulators play this game on the environmental or labor policy fronts, conservatives rightly cry foul. After all, the result being coerced from them is hardly "voluntary;" those firms are only acting because they are facing harsher penalties if they choose not to act." http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/thie...>
A consumer backlash to market behavior is one thing. A threat by government to regulate is entirely another.
Tim Lee
· 3 years ago
I think there's two issues here. The first is whether government intervention is appropriate at all. I think the answer is clearly "no" in the case of a la carte, and probably "no" in the case of network neutrality regulations.
However, for those who answer "yes" to this question, a second question is: what form should the action take? And Felten argues persuasively that given the highly speculative and complex nature of the issue, this is a case where the bully pulpit is likely to be better than premature legislation.
I think Adam would probably agree that, much as it rankles all of us to have the FCC informally twisting the cable industry's arms to offer particular programming packages, it could be even worse if the FCC enacted formal regulations on the subject.
All Comments
Tim -- seems to be a rehash of the "bully pulpit" approach, where regulators get firms to do what they want without actually having to go through the messiness of adopting an actual regulation.
I thought Adam Thierer pretty thorougly destroyed this argument in his NRO piece earlier this year (in the context of Kevin Martin's push for cable a la carte):
"...conservatives typically oppose the use of the so-called "enlightening power of the Bully Pulpit," which involves government shaking down private companies for favors. For example, when regulators play this game on the environmental or labor policy fronts, conservatives rightly cry foul. After all, the result being coerced from them is hardly "voluntary;" those firms are only acting because they are facing harsher penalties if they choose not to act."
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/thie...>
A consumer backlash to market behavior is one thing. A threat by government to regulate is entirely another.
However, for those who answer "yes" to this question, a second question is: what form should the action take? And Felten argues persuasively that given the highly speculative and complex nature of the issue, this is a case where the bully pulpit is likely to be better than premature legislation.
I think Adam would probably agree that, much as it rankles all of us to have the FCC informally twisting the cable industry's arms to offer particular programming packages, it could be even worse if the FCC enacted formal regulations on the subject.