1992 - 2007

For more than 10 years, the US has tried to keep regulatory pace with a rapidly changing telecommunications landscape that consistently promises better services, better prices, and a better economy. No one disagrees that Telecom reform is a necessity. But local governments cannot support legislation that basically strips them of their rights to act in the best interests of their citizens.

1992
Congress passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 to encourage competition, lower cable rates, provide for strong and effective consumer protections, and to ensure that all citizens would be able to benefit from new technologies. (The current Congress has not assessed the effectiveness of this previous legislation, nor has it tested its theories to see if it is now necessary to dismantle these safeguards.)

1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of US telecommunications law in nearly 62 years. Approved by the 104th Congress, the Act forced telephone companies to share their lines with competitive companies. The hope was that this would foster greater competition, lower prices, create more jobs and help America realize a better future. Instead, most historians agree the Act basically resulted in less competition and higher prices.

2000
In the 106th Congress, several pieces of legislation were passed to start to address the unique regulatory needs of new technologies such as the Internet and wireless.

2006
The US Congress considered and failed to enact legislation that would have modified the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the 1992 Cable Act and would have undermined local government franchising and taxing authority.

2007

In March 2007, the FCC released its report and order on local franchising, which severely restricts local governments' role in the franchising process, limits build-out requirements for telecommunications providers and requires that financial support for PEG channels be offset against the franchise fees paid to local governments.  The new rules are being challenged by a coalition of local government associations in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.