Telecommunications Act

of 1996/

Web Regulation

It has been three years since the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been passed, which among many other things, aimed to create a fair competition field for telephone and cable companies, and make the Internet a more decent place to "surf." So far, we are seeing that increased competition among the telephone and cable companies are materializing, and the two mediums are even merging with one another to create what I call "super communications companies." However, the intent to regulate the web took a major fall in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional in the landmark case ACLU vs. Reno.

It was thought that the act would stimulate lower cable and telephone rates due to increased competition.  However, without regulation, rates were subject to prices determined by the companies, not the government.  As a result, rates increased steadily, contradicting the intentions of the act. (Noll, 1998)

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the CDA proved to be a huge blow to those lobbying for Internet regulation.  As a sort of pork barrel to the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  the CDA intended to limit Internet speech and content.  However, the Supreme Court did not find the Internet to be "pervasive"  In july 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that "...government may regulate a communications medium because of its pervasiveness." (Wallace, 1998)  This confuses many who do not understand the difference between radio/T.V. and print media/Internet.  Radio/T.V. transmits "live" over the airwaves, meaning the only way for a listener or viewer to discriminate against its contents is to change the channel.  It is, in a way, an uninvited guest, and it is up to the audience to decide whether to accept that "guest."  The print media/Internet, however, requires the interested party to actually "look for" his or her desired content.  Since it is the prerogative of the audience to search for this content, it is not considered pervasive.

In my opinion, it is not enough for a medium to be deemed "pervasive" to warrant regulation.  Obscene and indecent web sites find their way into homes far too easily.  Some argue that many require a fee or a password of some sort, but those same sites may offer free "samples" of what you would get if you become a member of that site.  True, many software programs offer security features and protection to restrict such sites, but that can prove to be very expensive.  Hence, good parenting remains the lone weapon in keeping the Internet a safe place for our kids to "surf.  The Communications Decency Act was the best thing that didn't happen to the Internet.
 
 

References

Noll, Michael A.  The Telecom Act of 1996: two years later.  Telecommunications. July 1998. p. 44-5.

Wallace, Jonathan D.  Pervasive Problem.  Reason. October 1998. p. 52-7.