The burden is on me to prove a bill that gave them tens or hundreds billions of dollars doesn't exist? That is like a Catholic asking an Atheist to prove God doesn't exist... Wow. Just Wow.
I like how you linked to Wikipedia rather than the bill itself. https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/652/text
From your original claim:
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not hand over billions of dollars to ISPs. Nor did it require them to run broadband by 2000. It did, however, deregulate the crap out of the market which is another issue entirely (we can surely agree that is the cause of our current mess).
As far as your timeline goes - Sec 706 of the 1996 act only told the FCC to periodically encourage high-speed connectivity to each house - it did not require it. The intention was they would review after 30 months and at a regular pace thereafter to continue encouraging high-speed deployments. Still, it did not require ISPs to do anything other than attend hearings every few years. The bill was very weak in that regard (which is one reason broadband did not get quickly deployed as they had hoped)
Broadband deployment grants were allowed in the 1996 act for two things - broadband to schools and libraries - which did happen - and small telcoms under $50 mil in revenue could get a seed grant to get started (this was part of the theory behind periodic reviews of broadband deployments. The FCC could push for grants for smaller companies to encourage competition in markets owned by large/lazy ISPs. A bad theory that didn't work)
The 1996 act did not suddenly give ISPs billions of dollars.
At the very least we can agree net neutrality needs to happen, even if just for regulatory purposes to avoid the current mess. Unfortunately based on the US's prior history with telcom regulations I would imagine the final legislation would be a complete mess.
Last edited:
