The internet was a new technology, with a “dial-up tone” bringing computer users to a Netscape browser via America Online. Cell phones were considered a luxury. VCRs were the big threat to broadcast TV, while compact disc players in the vehicle were the biggest “Share of Ear” competitor to AM/FM radio. “That time looks nothing like today and that’s why we need to update and amend our laws,” argues Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.).
That’s the tone Republicans set to establish for a Communications & Technology Subcommittee hearing devoted to a look at the results of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton. Among the three witnesses in the Rayburn House Office Building meeting room to share his thoughts — former FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly.
For Democrats, fewer independent voices, job losses and consolidation is the matter of the day as it looks back at what a Democrat in the White House signed into law. For Minority Leader Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), her opening statement took aim at FCC Chairman Brendan Carr for allowing Media Bureau Chief Erin Boone, on delegated authority, to “Rubber Stamp” Nexstar Media Group‘s merger with TEGNA on waivers that allow it to surpass a Congressionally mandated national ownership reach cap of 39%.
Full Energy & Committee Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) then spoke, ahead of Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), and the respectful differences in viewpoint on the FCC’s regulatory role were shared. For Guthrie, a “light-touch” approach championed under former Chairman Ajit Pai was suggested. Pallone lashed out at FCC head Carr for “serving as President Trump’s lackey” as he condemned the Media Bureau’s decision on TEGNA’s purchase by Nexstar, saying the deal cannot be approved without an act of Congress as it is illegal.
With a federal court fight already underway, courtesy of eight Attorneys General and DirecTV, in Sacramento designed to somehow unwind Nexstar’s now-closed merger with TEGNA, Democrats did their best to bring their criticisms of the deal announced in August 2025 front and center as to why the Telecommunications Act of 1996 didn’t exactly achieve what their predecessors in Congress perhaps was desired at the time.
PICKERING RETURNS, AS A WITNESS
He was a Republican House Member from 1997-2009 representing Mississippi’s third Congressional district, and on Thursday (3/26) found himself on the opposite side of the dias, as a witness.
Chip Pickering had the pleasure of overseeing the implementation of the act as a young Congressman elected one year after its signing into law, he said in his current role as CEO of Incompas, a trade association focused on competition policy across all networks that advocates for laws and policies “that promote competition.” This was illustrated in his opening statement, focused on broadband connectivity and network access.
Following Pickering came an opening statement from O’Rielly, who unofficially lost his job as a Commissioner over a spat with President Trump regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, citing constitutional law.
For O’Rielly, six lessons can be learned from the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Telephone industry disputes were first on his list of accomplishments, with long-distance charges all but evaporating in subsequent years.
On a 360-degree level, the Act proved to O’Rielly that comprehensive legislation is extremely difficult; key industries were intentionally excluded or only marginally affected; and timeliness and an asymmetrical trade affected outcome.
Furthermore, one cannot rely on the implementing agency thanks to the Telecom Act of 1996, as compromises proved painful; advocates are still litigating vague language.
Should Congress engage in a major rewrite? “I do not at this time see the demand for comprehensive reform,” O’Rielly said in his opening statement. But, he quickly added that deregulating the video service marketplace is something Congress should do, along with satellite regulatory reform.
“The 1992 Cable Act imposed significant burdens and responsibilities upon the cable sector,” the Republican-aligned former FCC Commissioner said. “Many of these can and should be eliminated to reflect the fact that the marketplace is flush with competitive alternatives for consumers. At the same time, legacy video providers are dropping video services from their bundles or building their own streaming business lines. Chairman Guthrie is to be commended for prioritizing this for the committee.”
Looking back to early 1996, O’Rielly was working for then-House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-Va.), serving as a policy analyst during the crafting and passage of the Telecom Act. “It was an exciting time for Capitol Hill, which operated somewhat differently than it does today,” O’Rielly noted. Indeed, with partisan politics still nascent following the “Republican Revolution” in the 1994 midterm elections in response to President Clinton’s election, the Newt Gingrich era and rancor between Republicans and Democrats was something fairly new. It was an open secret on Capitol Hill that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) regularly enjoyed playing golf with some of his biggest political opponents.
Also appearing as witnesses were Adam Thierer, Resident Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at R Street Institute, and Free Press VP of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood, who in his opening statement mirrored Democrats’ complaints of FCC Chairman Carr as it pertains to merger review and the network-affiliate broadcast television station relationship.
Interestingly, the hearing at the Rayburn HOB, on the south side of Capitol Hill, began just minutes before Carr convened the FCC’s March Open Meeting at FCC Headquarters, a 30-minute walk north to L Street. The docket did not include matters pertaining to broadcast media regulatory policy or rules, focusing on the onshoring of call centers by U.S. businesses, combatting illegal robocalls and reducing barriers to network improvements and service changes.
