I agree with most of the posts and I think that although the FCC is an American organisation, I don't think I have often seen
BBC written in full in an article (no doubt, if I googled it, I could find some, so please don't just to prove a point), it would be taken as read, as would
CNN, CD, Wi-Fi etc.
I think the problem is that the FCC would be known by many, especially here, but probably should have had an explanation.
However not all acronyms should need an explanation, as they are clear to the majority of readers, and are used in common language as such.
Edit:
FYI : Just saw
this article on CNN:
FCC approves emergency alert text-messaging system
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Cell phone users will get text message alerts of emergencies under a new nationwide alert system approved late Wednesday by the Federal Communications Commission, according to FCC spokesman Robert Kenny.
An emergency text message would be sent in the event of a widespread disaster, severe weather or child abduction.
Under the plan, the FCC will appoint a federal agency to create the messages and pass them on to cell phone companies that choose to participate, an FCC representative said earlier. Once that agency is named, the participating cell phone providers would have 10 months to comply with the new system's requirements.
and IMO (to use an acronym), this is badly done - the letters FCC should follow Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in brackets immediately the first time used.
