 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Regulator demands for info increases costs said by fAcEtIOUs:The scope of the FCC's investigation was broad, seeking data going back to 2006. "After reviewing their request for information, we determined that it would have taken over 1,500 man hours just to compile the information for 2008."
"We stand ready to work with them and to see how best to proceed from this point. The amount of information was so substantial and the amount of time very short," the Comcast spokeswoman said. And people wonder why businesses, both large & small, hate regulatory agencies. It is the cost of providing huge amounts of info to feed the bureaucrats constant demands for data and then waiting interminably for OKs to do anything. This isn't just the FCC, but the dozens of agencies that a business has to satisfy to do anything. I use to agree to that. The Sarbanes Oxley Act, for example, requires a lot of money and a lot of man hours for a small broker firm in order to stay compliant.
But then again, look at Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, and all the recent companies who had little or no regulation. |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK
2 edits | Disagree. Plenty of regulation. The problem was their Chief Officers broke the law and all ended in jail or in the grave. These companies failing had very little to do with not enough regulations. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Rob
said by Rob:But then again, look at Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, and all the recent companies who had little or no regulation. The executives who broke the law were punished under existing law. There was no need for Sarbanes-Oxley.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| reply to caco
Correct. Enron and the rest found loopholes in the existing mountains of regulations and used them to gain illicit profits. More regulation = more loopholes.
Case in point -- why weren't the CEOs of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac marched into a courthouse in front of the cameras, under arrest for being dishonest about the health of their companies? Isn't that what SOx was supposed to prevent? Billions were lost (except by the execs) yet there's been no public outrage, no death threats like Enron executives received, and no one had their character smeared in the press.
Strange.... |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:But then again, look at Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, and all the recent companies who had little or no regulation. Sarbanes Oxley is a response to those events, and reflects the typical government response to an issue:
Too much, too late, and in the wrong place.
You have to wonder what the FCC would even do with that data, other than mark the check box that they've received it. |
|
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to jester121
said by jester121:Correct. Enron and the rest found loopholes in the existing mountains of regulations and used them to gain illicit profits. They weren't loopholes. They just basically violated accounting standards and broke laws to make their company stock value increase. It wasn't a legel loophole, it was then and is now illegal.
Now, they did take advantage of lax oversight and regulation to make the frauds succeed.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
