Telecommunications Act of 1996
| Other short titles | Communications Decency Act of 1996 |
|---|---|
| Long title | An Act to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid development of new telecommunications technologies. |
| Nicknames | Communications Act of 1995 |
| Enacted by | the 104th United States Congress |
| Effective | February 8, 1996 |
| Citations | |
| Public law | 104-104 |
| Statutes at Large | 110 Stat. 56 |
| Codification | |
| Acts amended | Communications Act of 1934 |
| Titles amended | 47 U.S.C.: Telegraphy |
| U.S.C. sections amended | |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| United States Supreme Court cases | |
| |
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a United States federal law enacted by the 104th United States Congress on January 3, 1996, and signed into law on February 8, 1996, by President Bill Clinton. It primarily amended Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code. Heavily supported and lobbied for by major corporations in the telecommunications sector, the act was the first significant overhaul of United States telecommunications law in more than sixty years. It amended the Communications Act of 1934, and represented a major change in that law, because it was the first time that the Internet was added to American regulation of broadcasting and telephony.
The stated intention of the law was to "let anyone enter any communications business – to let any communications business compete in any market against any other." In practice, it gave way to one of the largest consolidations of the telecommunications sector in history - as such, it is often described as an attempt to deregulate the American broadcasting and telecommunications markets due to technological convergence. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been praised for incentivizing the expansion of networks and the offering of new services across the United States. At the same time, it is often criticized for enabling market concentration in the media and telecommunications industries, going against its very stated intention by indirectly restricting newcomer access to broadcasting.