Broadcasting

Congress overhauled the telecommunications industry in 1996 with the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (47 U.S.C.A. §§151 et seq.). This statute made a number of major changes to laws governing the telecommunications industry. Among these were deregulatory measures, including provisions allowing local phone companies, long-distance companies, and cable companies to compete over the same services. Another provision requires television manufacturers to include circuitry that allows parents to screen out programming they do not wish their children to view, such as programs featuring violence.

Congress intended for the act to facilitate competition in a variety of areas of the telecommunications market. Several of its provisions have failed. Rival telecommunications companies did not immediately enter each other's markets, so consumers did not receive cost-savings benefits caused by the competition. FCC deregulation rules, according to many commentators, have been obscure and ineffective, leading to several court challenges. Many of the problems have involved local and long-distance telephone companies, some of which have begun to offer "package" deals with local telephone use, long-distance plans, and INTERNET access. Nevertheless, the telecommunications industry between 2000 and 2003 has been in economic turmoil, with several companies ordering massive layoffs or filing for BANKRUPTCY.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has also been the subject of several court challenges. Title V of the Telecommunications Act, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, sought to protect minors from exposure to indecent materials transmitted over the Internet. The Supreme Court, in a highly debated case, struck down most of those provisions on First Amendment grounds in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997). The Telecommunications Act also included so-called "signal bleed" provisions, requiring cable operators either to scramble channels containing sexually explicit materials or to limit programming on these channels to certain hours. The Supreme Court likewise struck down these requirements as impermissible content-based restrictions in violation of the First Amendment in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 120 S. Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2000).