This topic reminds me of a somewhat comical video that I had watched a while ago

Similar to what is being talked about, this video gives an overview of standardization and how it is something that is used globally (particularly this video talks about ISO. One of the main points that are made is the importance of standardization in terms of experiments impacting different questions(tea experiment example).
In terms of monetization, I think that this is a neccesary barrier to entry, as it keeps the amount of agencies having the standard lower, and increasing the quality (assuming that having more money to spend to obtain the standard correlates to more money to go towards quality). The other side of the coin is of course making money on the labor that goes into creating these standards. If something is made using effort, it draws a cost on the one making it which is sought to be compensated.

To find the video search The $40 Internationally Standard Cup of Tea

Why do you think these regulations cost money?

I think regulations cost money because at the end of the day, information cost. I do believe that the price of the document may be expensive to some startups but however, if a company knows that they have to have certain paperwork needed for regulatory actions, then I would assume that would be apart of their budget starting out. I do not know if there is a better way to handle this, I mean the agency must hire people to read the documents and ensure that companies are meeting the standards. 

I actually questioned this myself this past weekend when creating the DID for the project Dr. Simon has assigned to us. Personally, I feel as though regulations should not cost since these regulations help ensure that devices are being designed and manufactured properly and within FDA guidelines. I feel its unfair to require that certain regulations are followed but the regulations are not provided to everyone without purchasing.

Your observations about the costs associated with accessing various standards and regulations in the medical device market are indeed thought-provoking. The primary reason these regulations carry a significant cost is that regulatory compliance has evolved into a complex and specialized field. This evolution has, in part, been driven by the highly competitive nature of the process, where companies vie for the attention and approval of agencies like the FDA. As a result, the entire regulatory landscape has become more intricate and demanding, often exceeding the complexity and cost of legal requirements. This escalation in complexity and competition has led to a situation akin to the rise of college admissions consultants in recent years. Just as students seek specialized guidance to navigate the increasingly competitive and complex world of college admissions, medical device companies find themselves in need of regulatory consultants. These consultants offer expertise in understanding and interpreting the standards set by bodies such as ISO, FDA, USP, AATB, ASTM, and others. The analogy extends to the financial burden as well; just as hiring admissions consultants can be a costly affair, so too can seeking the services of regulatory consultants. For startups and smaller companies, this scenario poses a significant challenge. The high cost of accessing these regulations can be prohibitive, potentially stifling innovation and growth. It raises the question of whether there could be a more equitable way to ensure compliance without imposing such financial burdens. Ideally, a system that allows easier and more affordable access to these crucial standards could foster a more inclusive and dynamic market, enabling companies of all sizes to contribute to advancements in medical technology while adhering to essential safety and quality standards.