Three extraordinarily able individuals have served as chairmen of the FCC since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Reed Hundt, William Kennard, and Michael Powell. All used the word “deregulation” to describe their accomplishments as chairman.

To many outside observers, the FCC is marching down a path of deregulation. One leading newspaper recently advised the new FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, “to continue down [the] deregulatory path.”

It would be hard to read newspaper accounts of the past week and conclude that the FCC is on any but an irreversible path to deregulation.

Surely this path must be paved with fewer regulations. But, just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, FCC rules occupy as many weighty tomes to day as nine years ago. No one knows how much these regulations burden our economy. Statutory language that requires biannual regulatory reviews as the primary method of deregulation are moribund, with recent FCC chairs complaining of administrative burden.

Could the FCC be on a less costly path than before? Sadly, this is not the case either. The FCC’s budget in fiscal year 1996 was $186 million. In 2005 it stands at $281 million, and the FCC is one of the few agencies that the Administration proposes to increase in 2006 to $304 million, a substantial 8% increase. The FCC’s budget has grown more rapidly than most other federal agencies, yet the FCC is often promoted as an example of deregulation.

The FCC funds this budget expansion by passing it all along to regulated entities through “regulatory fees” and “license application fees.” Congress does not pay for the FCC’s budget out of taxpayer funds, and thus Congress has little incentive to rein in unending spending increases. These regulatory fees, raising $280 million this year, have been rising rapidly.

The ever-increasing licensing fees are mostly used to subsidize rulemaking, litigation, and other non-licensing activities of the FCC. Simply stated, FCC licensees pay a rapidly growing tax for which they receive only limited service in return.

Of course, these fees are ultimately paid by consumers of telecommunications services. Earlier this month, the “deregulatory” FCC forbade wireless companies from telling consumers about these regulatory fees.

One would expect that the current deregulatory path must have lower taxes and fees. Would that it were so. Nine years ago there was no federal universal service fund fee. Four years ago, it was 6.6%; today it stands at a whopping 11.1%.

If deregulation hasn’t led to smaller budgets, then have bigger budgets led to greater FCC success in court and greater predictability of federal communications law? No. The Web site for the FCC’s Office of General Counsel lists the four most recent court decisions affecting the FCC. Two days ago, the Web site showed unambiguous wins for the FCC in only one of four cases. While the FCC sometimes has a higher batting average in court, its legal posture remains risky, hardly the basis to encourage investors.

Of course, each recent FCC chairman can point to many examples of real deregulation during his tenure. But none can claim unequivocally that the structure of regulation was substantially diminished during his tenure. Deregulation has been the exception, not the rule.

It is impossible to measure with any precision how much better (or worse) off American communications consumers and businesses are today than 10 years ago as a result of “deregulation” at the FCC. We certainly enjoy many new communications services, but some of those might have been available under the old regulatory regime. And the FCC has managed to bring new meaning to legal uncertainty.

Ironically, it was little more than 10 years ago that President Clinton, in the wake of the Republican victory in the 1994 elections, proclaimed “The Era of ‘Big Government’ is Over.” The communications sector is still waiting for his words to come true.

Kevin Martin has now assumed the chair at the FCC. He is receiving a great deal of advice, much of it to continue along the current “deregulatory path” of the FCC. Four more years down this path will lead to even larger FCC budgets, more regulations, higher taxes, and even greater regulatory uncertainty. Chairman Martin can do better.

A former FCC commissioner,Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is president of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com.