The Telecommunications Act of 1996 turned 30 years old on February 8, 2026. As one of the principal staffers responsible for drafting the 1996 Act, I am simultaneously proud of our efforts, disappointed with some of its failings, and frustrated by the inconsistent implementation by regulators, yet pleased with our overall progress. The Telecom Act, though far from perfect, helped to usher in a competitive climate that has allowed the U.S. to innovate and lead the world in high-tech.

One of the key motivators behind the Act was the bipartisan agreement that Congress, not a single federal court judge, should set U.S. telecommunications policy. The Ford Administration Justice Department had filed an antitrust suit against AT&T in the 1970s, claiming that AT&T’s monopoly control over local phone service allowed it to stifle emerging competitors for long-distance service. In the settlement agreement to the case – called the Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) – the parties agreed that AT&T would relinquish its control over local telephone service in exchange for the right to engage in electronic publishing and other information services. But local service was still regarded as a natural monopoly. Thus, the MFJ created seven “Baby Bell” companies that were allowed to retain their monopolies over local service but were barred from entering the manufacturing, long-distance, or information services markets. Perhaps the biggest driver of the Telecommunications Act was the Bell companies’ effort to convince Congress to overturn these prohibitions.  

But the Bells were not alone in seeking legislation. The cable industry sought relief from the rate regulations imposed by the 1992 Cable Act. AT&T, then offering just long-distance service, wanted to compete for local service. The satellite industry sought an exemption from state taxation. Small telcos supported creating the Universal Service Fund (USF). Broadcasters sought to raise the ownership caps and deploy high-definition television (HDTV). Newspapers sought protection against the Bell companies' entry into the electronic publishing market, and the then-infant online industry sought immunity for content posted on its networks. 

This enormous jumble of interested parties sparked criticism from Ralph Nader, who described the Act as “corporate welfare’’ that would lead to greater consolidation than competition. But the Act was not an industry bailout; it was actually based on a few important unifying themes.

First, the Act opened the marketplace to greater competition, investment, innovation, and deregulation—which we believed would ultimately benefit consumers. And it struck a balance—before the major players could enter new markets, they had to give up their monopoly over their legacy businesses. For instance, the Act required the Bell companies to allow access to their local networks at just and reasonable rates to promote local telephone competition. The Act preempted state and local barriers to entry, allowing cable companies to provide telephone service, and vice versa. The law allowed broadcasters to provide HDTV and information services over their spectrum, and provided new competitive companies the right to attach fiber lines to poles owned by telcos and electric utilities at regulated rates.

Second, while the Act opened the door to competition across all sectors, it also recognized that monopoly power does not disappear overnight. The law provided safeguards to prevent the still formidable former monopolies from extending their market power into adjacent markets until competition had developed on the ground. For instance, the Act permitted the Bell companies to enter new lines of business as long as they created separate subsidiaries for long-distance, manufacturing, and information services.

Third, the Act codified and expanded the notion of “universal service.” In the past, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required AT&T to keep local telephone rates low by subsidizing them with higher-than-cost long-distance prices. We knew that this internal subsidy mechanism would fall apart as competition developed, so the Act moved from an implicit to an explicit universal service subsidy regime to promote investment in rural markets and keep rates affordable. Virtually all telecommunications providers are now obligated to contribute, whether they have market power or not. The Snowe-Rockefeller amendment in the Senate ensured that schools and libraries (E-Rate) and rural health care providers (Rural Health Care (RHC) Program) would also receive subsidies to help them bring the benefits of the information age to students, library patrons, and healthcare providers and patients.

Public interest groups also benefited. The Act included provisions to help people with disabilities, establish privacy protections, prevent red-lining, and allow consumers to purchase their own cable set-top boxes.

A fourth theme of the 1996 Act was to promote nascent online services, which we were eager to foster. This effort actually began with the FCC’s policies in the 1980s to exempt “enhanced service providers” from having to pay the same access charges as long-distance companies. The 1996 Act took this approach one step further by adopting Section 230, which insulates online platform companies from liability for content posted by others. This provision, though now extremely controversial, was widely praised at the time for helping to spawn the growth of competitive programming content over the internet.

And fifth, of course, the Act set up a process for deregulating industries once they faced real competition. Section 10 of the Act allows the FCC to forbear from a regulation when rates are just, reasonable and non-discriminatory, when consumer safeguards are in place, and when in the public interest. And, of course, the Act vacated the MFJ, removing regulatory authority from the court and restoring the authority of the FCC and states to regulate the industries. 

Unfortunately, while the Act addressed internet content, it failed to address the regulatory status of internet access, which turned into one of its biggest failures. The overlapping and confusing definitions of “telecommunications services” and “information services” in the Act led to virulent arguments and excessive litigation over “net neutrality” lasting two decades. Had we focused on the issue head-on, our negotiations would likely have resulted in a Title II-light regulatory framework to govern internet access. As the internet was still in its infancy and the market too uncertain, it was easier to get the bill through Congress by avoiding the issue.

The immediate aftermath of the Act’s passage was decidedly messy. While Congress intended the Act to promote “regulatory certainty,” the reality was quite the opposite. Passage of the Act led to a plethora of competing regulations and lawsuits. The Clinton-era FCC adopted an overly restrictive pricing regime for access to the Bells’ networks, which was challenged in court. The Bush-era FCC swung the pendulum too far in the other direction by exempting fiber networks from unbundling, re-instituting the Bells’ market power over advanced networks. This mix of high hopes and regulatory chaos led to the “dot-com” crash of 2000-2002.

In addition, the Bell companies and long-distance companies chose to merge rather than compete, thus reducing the market of roughly 11 players (the seven Bells, AT&T, MCI, Worldcom, and Sprint) down to 4 (Verizon, AT&T, CenturyLink/Lumen, and Sprint/T-Mobile). While these mergers were not the fault of the 1996 Act, the Act’s silence on this issue certainly was an oversight. The cable companies, however, largely fulfilled their promise to provide facilities-based competition by upgrading their networks and became the dominant residential broadband providers.

To address “universal service,” the FCC created the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to collect and disburse universal service subsidies to rural telcos, schools and libraries, rural health care providers, and low-income consumers. Telecommunications carriers are assessed USF contributions and many pass the cost through to customers as a separate charge, which fueled “USF tax” rhetoric. Republicans on Capitol Hill initially raised a howl about the E-Rate Program (calling the USF subsidies the “Gore tax”), but the FCC persevered and largely succeeded in bringing “information age” benefits to all schoolchildren and library patrons nationwide. The financial support for rural telcos – the largest portion of the USF – has been reformed in several ways to make the subsidies more efficient (though still costly). And a pending challenge to the E-Rate and RHC programs in the 5^th Circuit Court could upset the entire USF regime.

On the broadcast side, the lifting of radio and television ownership caps led to more consolidation in the industry, which has resulted in greater uniformity and a loss of localism. On the other hand, the growth of internet content and streaming services has expanded the diversity of viewpoints. The 1996 Act allowed broadcasters to acquire a second channel HDTV, and while this was initially framed as a “give-away”, the FCC wisely required the broadcasters to relinquish their old channels to make more spectrum available for mobile networks.

Did the 1996 Telecom Act succeed in promoting competition and reducing regulation? There is little doubt that the Act set in motion a more competitive and innovative dynamic that has led to lower consumer prices and greater access to technologies. The Act actually hastened the obsolescence of the local and long-distance telephone markets and focused on consumer services. The Act successfully promoted online services to such an extent that policymakers now worry that the edge providers have acquired their own market power. The wireless industry has exploded, partly due to the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act that gave the FCC spectrum auction authority, but also from the 1996 Act’s HDTV transition.

But the Act could be improved. There are now fewer monopolies, but also greater consolidation. The country is trying to move toward a less regulatory marketplace, but the “digital divide” is stubborn, with 10 percent to 15 percent of people still without a wireline internet connection. Congress, the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and state policymakers are still working to make broadband ubiquitous and affordable for all. Subsidies are still needed to promote broadband adoption and to democratize the benefits of AI. In short, the 1996 Telecom Act supercharged the restructuring of the telecommunications marketplace, but there is more work to be done before we can reach the fully competitive, deregulatory marketplace that the 1996 Act envisioned.

John Windhausen, Jr. was counsel and senior counsel to the Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee from 1987 until the summer of 1996.  He can be reached at jwindhausen@telepoly.net.

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 2025. 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