For example, technological change had already altered telecommunications, and U.S. industries were feeling the pressures of global competition. In an unregulated environment, the market would be the culprit. Under such circumstances, a philosophic acceptance of competition and deregulation could be viewed as prudent for politicians seeking reelection. The idea of competition provided a convenient and powerful argument for policy change. Olufs finds meager analytic policymaking at work during the passage of the 1996 act.
Telecommunications is notorious for substantial special interest influence over policy.
The large telephone companies poured money into congressional campaigns and lobbied energetically, activities that are not conducive to rational decision making. It is not surprising that the industry had a say, albeit not a complete say, in the 1996 legislation. The public usually ignores telecommunications and certainly in this case, remained silent and uniformed. The 1996 act has created change, but because priorities and outcomes were not well articulated, what occurred was not always what was anticipated. Local telephone competition has been slow to emerge, and regulators have not permitted RBOCs to enter long-distance markets.