The Communications Act is badly outdated. Congress last made major changes to it in 1996—when the Internet was relatively new, before smartphones, and before streaming video. When Congress is able to take up major legislation again, it should replace the current law with a new Communications Act designed for how Americans communicate today and as they are likely to in the years to come.

The central question is foundational: How should the United States protect consumers, promote competition, expand access, safeguard privacy, and manage public resources in an age when the Internet is our most important communications system?

Communications technology has changed dramatically, but many of the underlying problems have not. A new law should build on long-standing principles: fair treatment, open access, universal service, public-interest protections, and responsible management of wireless spectrum.

1. The Communications Act Is broken.

The Communications Act was updated in 1996 to regulate phone service, wireless communications, and cable TV.[1] But with the Internet, smartphones, and streaming video, the ways people communicate have changed dramatically since then. And sadly, a technologically ignorant court ruling[2] has stripped the law of its power.[3] Today, the Communications Act barely covers the communications services that Americans actually use.

A. The Internet is how we communicate now—but the law doesn't treat it that way.

The Communications Act is meant to protect consumers of communications services by prohibiting providers of these services from charging unreasonable rates, implementing unreasonable discriminatory practices, or spying on your communications. These protections are called “common carrier” rules.

Such protections have long been applied to landline telephone service, which in 1996 was the dominant communications service. However, today only about 1 in 5 U.S. households still has a landline, and that number keeps falling.[4]

The Internet has taken the landline's place. In 1996, fewer than 7 percent of American adults went online each week.[5] Today, 90 percent use the Internet daily.[6] The Internet is also far more central to daily life than it was in 1996. Back then, people mainly used it for email, web browsing, and discussion groups. Today, people use it to search for information, work, attend school, store files, watch video, use social media, shop, access government services, and increasingly access artificial intelligence tools. The digital economy now accounts for about 18% of U.S. gross domestic product.[7]

The competitive landscape has shifted, too. In 1996, you connected to the Internet through your phone line, and there were roughly 3,000 Internet service providers (ISPs) to choose from.[8] Today, you have at most 1 or 2 broadband providers that offer fixed broadband service at reasonable speeds and rates at your house.[9] That's not a competitive market.

And yet, under current law, your fixed broadband service is not considered to be a common carrier service. Which means that the consumer protections that apply to the landline telephone service you used to have—like the right to reasonable pricing, non-discriminatory treatment, and privacy of your communications—simply don't apply to your fixed broadband service. The law that was supposed to protect everyday communications consumers no longer does.

B. Your phone's data connection is the dominant wireless communications service—but the law doesn't cover it either.

The part of the Communications Act that governs the public airwaves was written with broadcast radio and broadcast television in mind. Today, however, only about 1 in 25 households get TV exclusively through an antenna.[10]

Cell phones and Wi-Fi have taken over. In 1996, only about 1 in 8 Americans owned a cell phone.[11] Today, 98 percent do,[12] and over 80 percent of households use Wi-Fi at home.[13] And the way we use our phones has changed entirely—in 1996, phones were for calls. Today, data (web browsing, streaming, apps, and other Internet activity) makes up 99 percent of what travels over those networks.

And yet when you use the Internet on your smartphone, that data service is also not considered to be a common carrier service. Which means that the consumer protections that still apply to your smartphone when you make a telephone call – like the privacy of your communications—simply don't apply to your smartphone when you use the Internet.

In addition, the spectrum used for Wi-Fi is far more economically valuable than what's used for broadcast TV and radio. The government now allocates most commercial spectrum through auctions—but those auctions don't account for the enormous value created by Wi-Fi. The law hasn't kept up.

C. We've cut the cord—but the law is still stuck in the cable era.

The cable TV section of the Communications Act was meant to make sure that wireline video services meet the needs of their local communities.

In 1996, about two-thirds of U.S. households subscribed to cable TV.[14] Today, that's down to about one-third—and falling fast.[15] Streaming has replaced cable as how most Americans watch TV. About 90% of U.S. households now subscribe to at least one streaming service.[16]

But streaming falls entirely outside the cable TV rules in the law. Before long, there won't be any significant cable TV service left to regulate. The old rules that were supposed to protect local communities are becoming irrelevant, and nothing has replaced them.

2. The Problems the Communications Act Was Meant To Solve Haven’t Gone Away.

Even as the law has become outdated, the problems it was designed to fix are still very much with us. Here's what Americans are dealing with today.

A. High prices.

Most American households have only one or two real choices for home broadband, and only three for nationwide mobile broadband.[17] When companies face no competition, they can charge whatever they want. When a second broadband provider enters a market where only one existed, prices often drop by 20% to 30%—a clear sign of how much profit providers extract when they face no competition.[18]

The Communications Act prohibits phone companies from charging unjust or unreasonable prices[19]—but since that rule doesn't apply to broadband, there's nothing stopping your broadband provider from doing exactly that.

To make things worse, many government programs designed to expand broadband access no longer even attempt to increase competition. The federal Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program, for example, is structured so that subsidies to serve high-cost areas are primarily intended to get a single broadband provider to offer high-speed broadband in those areas.

B. Discrimination and throttling.

Companies with market power don't just overcharge—they also play favorites in ways that boost their own profits at consumers' expense.

Mobile broadband providers often slow down video streaming on your smartphone, unless you pay them extra not to do so.[20] They also often charge you extra to use your smartphone as a Wi-Fi hotspot, even though you're already paying for transmitting the data.[21]

Mobile broadband providers and cable broadband providers make sure their own phone service works smoothly, but they won’t do the same for other voice providers and voice apps like Facetime, Zoom, or WhatsApp.[22]

The Communications Act bans this kind of unreasonable discrimination[23]—but again, only for old telephone services. Broadband is left out.

C. Building broadband networks.

Broadband networks are expensive to build, especially in rural areas with few homes spread over long distances. In many places, it does not make business sense for more than one company to build a broadband network. This is known as a natural monopoly.

The Communications Act was written to provide access to telephone service in all areas of the Nation.[24] However, the costs of building communication networks have only risen as the Internet has supplanted the telephone network. Consequently, roughly 1 in 5 of rural U.S. households still don't have access to fixed broadband at speeds considered adequate for modern use (100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload, or faster).[25]

The Communications Act has a goal of giving everyone access to quality communications services. But the programs meant to achieve that goal haven't gotten the job done.

D. Affordability and adoption.

A broadband network does little good if people cannot afford to use it. The Communications Act sought to make communications services affordable to all Americans.[26]

At its peak, landline telephone service reached more than 97 percent of U.S. households.[27] And yet, only about 1 in 3 of households in the lowest income bracket subscribe to broadband at speeds considered adequate for modern use.[28] In some cases, there are no broadband providers offering high-speed broadband service. But in other cases, there is, but many households simply can’t afford it.

Low subscription rates in lower-income neighborhoods also reduce broadband provider revenue, which can cause broadband providers to invest less in upgrading those networks—creating a cycle that widens the digital divide.

Again, the law has affordability goals on paper, but the implementation has fallen short.

E. Fighting over how networks interconnect.

In order for you to call someone who has a different telephone provider, your telephone company needs to interconnect its network with other telephone networks. Congress recognized this fact long ago, and thus the Communications Act ensures end-to-end connectivity through interconnection agreements that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.[29]

In order for you to go where you want on the Internet, your broadband provider needs to interconnect its network with other broadband networks. However, since the Communications Act does not currently apply to broadband service, interconnection disputes are common between large broadband providers and large content providers such as Netflix. When one party in that relationship has more power than the other, negotiations over the terms of that connection can get ugly—and consumers end up paying the price through higher bills or slower, less reliable service.

The Communications Act has tools to ensure fair interconnection—but they don't apply to broadband.

F. Closed systems reduce competition.

When a company controls both the broadband network and the services running over it, it has strong incentives to give its own services an unfair advantage. This is called vertical integration, and it can shut out competition.

Powerful companies often grow by buying up adjacent businesses and locking everything together into a closed ecosystem. Today, some mobile broadband providers are building specialized services that bundle apps directly with their network—making it harder for outside competitors to offer alternatives.[30] The Communications Act had protections against this kind of anti-competitive behavior.[31] But since those protections don't apply to broadband, the problem is growing unchecked.

G. Your private data is up for sale.

The Communications Act recognizes that in order to provide telephone service, your telephone company needs to know the telephone number you are calling. However, the law also recognizes that you have a right to privacy. And thus, the Communications Act prohibits your telephone company from using the telephone numbers you call without your consent for purposes other than implementing your telephone service.[32]

Similarly, your broadband provider needs to know the names of the websites you visit in order to connect you to those websites. However, you should have a similar right to privacy on the Internet. Your broadband provider should be prohibited from using a list of the websites you visit without your consent for purposes other than implementing your broadband service.  

Astonishingly, the Communications Act no longer prohibits your broadband provider from selling that information without your permission. Your browsing history is fair game.

3. The Principles of the Communications Act Still Make Sense.

Even though communications technology has changed dramatically since 1996, the good news is that the core principles of the Communications Act are still sound. They just need to be applied to the communications services people actually use today.

A. Fair treatment for all: common carriage.

Throughout history, services that carried things across a network—whether it was goods on a railroad or messages over a telegraph—have been required to serve everyone fairly and equally. The same principle was applied to telephone service. It should now apply to broadband service.

Broadband providers are in the business of carrying your data from one place to another. They should be required to do so without playing favorites, without unreasonably discriminating between customers or types of traffic, and with basic privacy protections. A new Communications Act should make that the law.

B. Innovation: open access

One of government's core jobs is to step in when markets fail. When a market is dominated by a handful of powerful companies, one solution is to require those companies to open their networks to competitors—giving consumers more choices and fostering innovation. Open access policies are especially effective at countering the harms of vertical integration.

The Internet was built on openness, modularity, and shared standards. That's what allowed it to grow so fast and spark so much innovation. Closed, proprietary systems that lock users in are the opposite of that—and they tend to stifle competition and harm consumers.

A new Communications Act should build on that foundation and require communications services to remain open and interoperable.

C. Connecting everyone: universal service.

Telephone service has long been treated as something that benefits not just the individual subscriber, but society as a whole—because the more people who are connected, the more valuable the network becomes for everyone. For that reason, the government has long subsidized phone service in rural areas and for low-income households.

Broadband has the same kind of broad social value—an economy and society where everyone is connected is better for all of us. A new Communications Act should extend those traditional subsidies to broadband: helping build out networks in areas where it's not profitable enough to do so, and helping low-income households afford service.

D. Keeping monopolies in check: public interest obligations.

In some cases, competition simply isn't feasible—for example, when building a network requires such enormous upfront investment that only one provider can survive in a given area. In those cases, the government needs to step in with regulations that protect the public from the downsides of monopoly power.

A new Communications Act should include clear rules for broadband providers that limit the harms caused by a lack of competition.

E. Managing public resources wisely: spectrum allocation.

The airwaves belong to the public. Government has a responsibility to manage them in the public interest.

As cell phones and Wi-Fi have become central to daily life, the value of this public infrastructure has skyrocketed. But the rules for managing spectrum haven't kept pace. The FCC has increasingly relied on auctions to allocate spectrum. However, auctioning off spectrum to the highest bidder doesn't necessarily result in the most valuable public use. Auctions fail to recognize the value of unlicensed spectrum, particularly that used for Wi-Fi, which generates enormous economic value.

A new Communications Act needs clear principles for how public communications infrastructure should be allocated and managed in a way that truly serves the public interest.

4. A Call for a New Communications Act.

The Communications Act is broken. The law was written for a world of landline phones, broadcast TV, and dial-up Internet—a world that no longer exists. Today, the Internet is how we talk, work, learn, and entertain ourselves. And yet the law meant to protect us in that digital world simply doesn't apply.

The problems the original law was designed to fix—high prices, discrimination, limited deployment, affordability, interconnection, impediments to competition, and privacy violations—are still very real.

But Congress has the tools to address them. The core principles that have guided communications policy for generations are still valid. They just need to be updated and applied to the services Americans actually rely on today.

Congress should write a new Communications Act—one built on common carriage, open access, universal service, public interest obligations, and responsible stewardship of public resources.

The technology has changed. The principles haven't. It's time the law caught up.

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2026. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities