The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Before the new act, the nation had seen the birth of television (both black and color); the increase of network, cable, and satellite broadcasting; advances in phone service; the birth and growth of cellular phone service; and the rapid increase in the use of computers and the Internet. The need for a major overhaul was long overdue. The previous act basically had to worry about what was going on with wire and radio. The 1934 act thought of communications as a natural monopoly. Communications were clearer cut back then and it was easier to think of just one organization regulating the use of that technology whether it was radio or wire. Telecommunication now is more diverse and affects the society more directly. We have products that combine technologies like cable and cellular phone systems that provide Internet access.

The 1996 act was devised with certain purposes for today's telecommunication technologies. The former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Reed Hundt said in a speech soon after the passing of the act, "The new law assumes that all parts of the communications marketplace can be made competitive. The new law is intended to end the era of big government in communications and begin the era of genuine competition" (Hundt, 1996).

One purpose of the new act was to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers. Another purpose was to encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. In addition, the Telecommunications Act essentially decreases regulation barriers against cable television providers supplying telecommunications services and removes all restrictions relating to the ownership of television and radio stations. The Act is also suppose to make it easier for long distance providers and local Bell Operating Companies (BOC) to be able to provide each other's services (Hughes, 1996).

So, this act is not for the direct impact of the public, but is legislation that affects telecommunications business in a way that will have a secondary effect on the public. There is a lot of controversy weather there will be any real impact on society at all or if the act will merely reflect the times enough to keep telecommunications in check. The act's supporters believe that it will have a large impact. Hundt said, "The goal of the Telecommunications Act is to let anyone enter any communications business-to let any communications business compete in any market against any other. The goal is to remove the legal and economic obstacles that have frustrated competition for too long" (Pike, 1997). As the act aged, the true benefits of the system didn't seem to match its hype.

The problem with the act is that it is trying to set every aspect of telecommunications into a set way of running for years to come. With the guidelines that the act follows, supporters of the act believe that it will bring a lot of benefits to society and serve the public interest. The catch to the act that makes it seem like the results won't be impressive is there can't be boundaries placed on this type technology and expect it to stay that way for years to come. Telecommunication technology changes too rapidly to be able to expect impressive results with a long-term implementation. Although the basic concept of the act might be note-worthy, the act also became bogged down with normal political pork that stagnated its effectiveness. Too many political parties played around with the structure of the telecommunications bill for eight years before it became law.

Former Senator, Larry Pressler was one of the law's chief sponsors and said on the day that the bill became law that the act "will lower prices on local telephone calls through competition. It will lower prices on long-distance calls through competition. It will lower cable TV rates through competition...This is the biggest jobs bill ever to pass this Congress" (Mills, 1997). Pressler was up for reelection soon after the bill was passed and was defeated. After his political post was over he downplayed the act's effectiveness and commented on the political pork that everyone threw in the act, "It's one of the unfortunate truths of life," said Pressler. "It was unique in that five or six groups could have vetoed it at any time. In certain instances, certain compromises had to be put in" (Schmitt, 1997).

Pressler's first statements about the glory days of the phone companies are definitely not here. Competing local and long-distance companies looking to enter the local markets are suing the BOCs for allegedly failing to open up access to their lines. The BOCs, which believe that the long distance companies are stalling to keep them out of the long distance market, are taking state regulatory commissions to court over c