BC) from ruling the airwaves. Of course, in 1934, television was only a dream, satellite technology hadn't been dreamt of, and wireless telephones were the stuff of comic books.
In the past six decades, however, the technical revolution in telecommunications has changed the nature of the beast dramatically. The same can be said of the political desire to regulate, deregulate, and reregulate the assorted technologies and industries which now fall under the watchful eye of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As each new form of communications service has come into existence or changed over the years, the 1934 Communications Act was eventually modified to maintain the regulatory relationship, and, in many cases, to preempt state and local regulation in order to promote universal service and technical standards. But has the need for such a pervasive regulatory environment reached its zenith? Many now think so.
The federal regulation of cable television was formally codified under the 1984 Cable Communications Policy Act, adding Title VI to the 50-year old Communications Act, and which was designed to deregulate cable at least as much as it had been regulated for nearly 30 years. In 1992, Congress revisited the industry regulations, and among the provisions of the Cable Act of 1992, price controls on many tiers of service were enacted in the wake of constituent complaints about excessive rate increases, as was an express prohibition of telephone company-operated cable television systems (Congressional Digest, January 1996, p. 10; Reuben, 1996, p. 46).
After all, cable television in most communities remains a government-sanctioned monopoly. Virtually irrevocable "franchises" are awarded to companies to dig up city streets and bury cable conduits (or to attach them to existing telephone poles, at a price negotiated with their owners), and to provide certain levels of service to subscribers for a fee. Cable franch...