Telecom Act Aides Say Failure to Define Broadband Sparked Years of Regulatory Fights
At the Benton Institute event, panelists reflect on successes and failures of the Telecom Act of 1996
At the Benton Institute event, panelists reflect on successes and failures of the Telecom Act of 1996
WASHINGTON, March 6, 2026 – When it comes to universal service, architects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 say they failed to address broadband’s regulatory status and failed to include a mechanism requiring the Universal Service Fund (USF) to be modernized every couple years.
At the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society’s Telecom Act at 30 event on Thursday, moderator Andrew Jay Schwartzman hosted a panel focused on celebrating and reflecting on the Telecom Act of 1996.
John Windhausen, a Senate staffer in 1996, said a “big disappointment” was that the act didn’t better define what broadband was, especially as the country was on the cusp of deploying service at that time. He said the law could have implemented a “lighter regulatory regime for broadband,” which would have prevented “decades of litigious activity and rulemaking proceedings.”
The company expects spending to rise sharply
This BroadbandLive will examine what is driving those differences, what the strongest markets are doing differently, and where there is still room for improvement.
AT&T cites rising copper theft and longer repair times for moving customers to newer technologies
Proponents of the CBRS band fear disruption from increased power levels or an auction