Perspective: Happy 10th and bon voyage, Telecom Act

This week marks the 10-year anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sought to create an open and competitive market. That competition is emerging, but not in ways the regulators anticipated.

As demand for voice, data and video transmission has converged into a single demand for information transmission, the market has moved toward broadband technology capable of providing rapid transmission of any data.

Consumers care less about how data is transmitted than about how much data is transmitted. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 cares more about how the data is transmitted. It must be reformed so the competitive market the act initially sought can be unleashed.

Ten years in regulatory time is a blink of the eye--and that's exactly why the rules are in need or major reform.

That 10-year-old technology regulations are horribly outdated will surprise no one familiar with the pace at which technological change comes at us today. In cybertime, scientists and entrepreneurs are repeatedly proving Moore's law to be true, which predicts that the rate of technological development will double every 18 months, making 10 years a technological eternity. However, 10 years in regulatory time is a blink of the eye--and that's exactly why the rules are in need of major reform.

To see why, consider how technology has changed over the last 10 years.

The Internet underwent a radical transformation as dial-up died, Wi-Fi was born, and broadband blossomed. Phone companies now offer cable TV service, while cable companies offer telephone service over the Internet. Customers are abandoning landlines as wireless companies look to score a "triple play" of video, voice and data capabilities. The iPod, TiVo and BlackBerry are tossed around with colloquial ease.

Ten years ago, the telecommunications market was 90 percent voice, 5 percent wireless and 5 percent data. Today it is 40 percent voice, 30 percent wireless and 30 percent data. In 1996, 37 million Americans were online; this year, more than 200 million Americans are using the Internet.

It is often said that the Internet changed everything. Yet over the last 10 years, almost everything about the Internet itself changed.

As these companies move to provide triple-play services of voice, video and data, the Telecom Act's artificial distinctions no longer apply.

But little has changed with the Telecom Act. A look at the terms used in the legislation reveal its obsolescence. For example, the Telecom Act mentioned the Internet only 11 times. Broadband and high-speed were mentioned once, and DSL (digital subscriber line) wasn't cited at all. The Telecom Act suffered from the fatal hubris that afflicts most government regulations: It falsely assumed it could anticipate and react to the evolution of technology.

Take the story of high-speed Internet as an example. Anyone who has shopped for this service knows the two main options are DSL from a phone company or cable from a cable company. They offer the same service, but they're treated differently by the law. The Telecom Act pigeonholes cable, telephone and other communication services into their own "silos." Each silo is regulated and taxed by different rules and bureaucracies. When the Telecom Act was written, cable and phone lines provided distinctly different services, video and voice, respectively.

Biography
Matt Kibbe is the president and CEO of FreedomWorks, a free-market advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

More Perspectives

[pjk0]

Another big business shill

The cable companies and ILECs (with the sole exception of Qwest) are doing very well financially, thankyou very much. They hardly need "regulatory relief" these days, since the regulatory landscape has been going very much their way ever since Michael Powell became FCC Chairman.

It's sad when tech publications print pap from such corporate shills gloating over the death of a piece of legislation whose effective demise had little to do with "advancing technology" and everything to do with the political climate in Washington these days. Consumers have less and less choice in internet access than ever before, and are left with what amounts to a duopoly, as Kibbe himself admits.

Contrary to Kibbe's contention, this sad state of affairs is largely the *result* of the failure of Washington to stand by the principles of the 1996 act, not because of it.

I hope consumers will have an opportunity to evaluate opposing, pro-citizen/pro-consumer points of view as well. Below are some links to get the ball rolling:

http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm
http://www.newnetworks.com/
http://www.aestudies.com/library/crowdout.pdf
http://www.turn.org/telco_sbcmerger.shtml
http://www.phoenix-center.org/pcpp/PCPP22Final.pdf
http://www.phoenix-center.org/pcpp/PCPP18.pdf
http://www.phoenix-center.org/pcpp/PCPP20Final.pdf
http://www.ucan.org/law_policy/teledocs/Undergrounding/underground.html
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/papers/open-broadband-future
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6036231.html?tag=nefd.hed
http://www.netaction.org/broadband/bells/
http://www.hearusnow.org/

[pjk0]

Another big business shill

The cable companies and ILECs (with the sole exception of Qwest) are doing very well financially, thankyou very much. They hardly need "regulatory relief" these days, since the regulatory landscape has been going very much their way ever since Michael Powell became FCC Chairman.

It's sad when tech publications print pap from such corporate shills gloating over the death of a piece of legislation whose effective demise had little to do with "advancing technology" and everything to do with the political climate in Washington these days. Consumers have less and less choice in internet access than ever before, and are left with what amounts to a duopoly, as Kibbe himself admits.

Contrary to Kibbe's contention, this sad state of affairs is largely the *result* of the failure of Washington to stand by the principles of the 1996 act, not because of it.

I hope consumers will have an opportunity to evaluate opposing, pro-citizen/pro-consumer points of view as well. Below are some links to get the ball rolling:

http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm
http://www.newnetworks.com/
http://www.aestudies.com/library/crowdout.pdf
http://www.turn.org/telco_sbcmerger.shtml
http://www.phoenix-center.org/pcpp/PCPP22Final.pdf
http://www.phoenix-center.org/pcpp/PCPP18.pdf
http://www.phoenix-center.org/pcpp/PCPP20Final.pdf
http://www.ucan.org/law_policy/teledocs/Undergrounding/underground.html
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/papers/open-broadband-future
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6036231.html?tag=nefd.hed
http://www.netaction.org/broadband/bells/
http://www.hearusnow.org/

Shill or not...

Can you really deny that franchises decrease competition and encourage monopolies? And isn't that bad for consumers?

Running fiber isn't that hard anymore; the problem is now on the government side. Getting rid of franchises would at least put the various large corporations at each others' throats.

I liked the Other Shill Better

At least she was peddling half-truths.