Talk:Telecommunications Act of 1996

message: There are weasel words indicating that the Act is a failure.
:What are you talking about? Weasel words? Act was a "failure"? What in the world are you talking about? Are you trying to say that this article is purposely misleading others to believe the passing of the amendment was a bad decision? Why don't you show how, and provide some evidence for a lack of neutrality next time. This article seems pretty good and supported to me. I'm going to take the 'debated neutrality' sticker down, because you really haven't given any argument. If you'd like to argue about it seriously, please provide evidence of its bias.
Hi Monk,
Please sign your comments. The weasel words comment was made by  an anonymous user several months ago. The article has improved since then, and while incomplete, I agree it probably doesn't need to be tagged for weasel words. PuerExMachina 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Telcom Act article merged with this article as per previous editor's instructions and template. MPLX/MH 22:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Telcom Act Merged

message: TRA redirects to here, but it's not clear why. The article doesn't mention it. I'm surprised TRA is not a disambiguation page actually. Aren't there several notable things sharing this acronym? -- Nojer2 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'TRA' redirect

message: Will someone write about how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave up digital spectrums away to the telecommunications industry for free?  (A spectrum that supposedly would have fetched $80 billion in a fair auction?)  I know that after this bill was passed, Senator Dole and others on Capitol Hill raised a lot of concern about this.  This was a major, but frequently unknown (for obvious reasons) aspect of the bill, and i thought it was funny that it wasn't mentioned at all.
Have you guys heard of this?
--Maxwellcoffee 08:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving of digital spectrum

message: I would like to know if any of the allegations set forth at this site are true/worth adding to this article.
--Sfultong 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Unauthorized Bio of the Baby Bells"

message: I know that neutrality is key in Wikipedia, but this bill was contentious, and has had many effects on services and costs to consumers.  It was written almost entirely by the Telcom companies, and is burdened with a lot of dirty laundry.  Is it inappropriate to include that kind of information in a Wikipedia article?
Quigonpaj 12:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Impact of Bill=

message: Seems to me that the latest edit was pretty sloppy. The paragraph after the list of mergers reads:
"Eventhough the Telecommunications act was brought into power to eliminate monopolization of large companies in the media field, this increased the power of the monopolizers through the new mergings that occurred. This last sentence is not accurate. Telecom monopolies existing because of Congressional law, until the federal courts broke up AT &T. The 1996 Act attempted to codify these changes in a new framework that would create additional competition."
So basically, the first editor said that the bill strengthened the monopolies, and the second editor decided to disagree with him, in the article, in the next sentence. Isn't that the kind of thing the Talk page is for? It sounds like the person writing this article had a dissociative identity disorder.
For now, I'm going to rewrite the whole paragraph. Feel free to change it if you have a better way of conveying the message.
Jason the Delicious 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sloppy Edit

message: Just restored the article as 72.80.19.251 deleted all content. Popher 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored

message: After working on formatting changes to the
Universal Service
paragraphs, and setting a small time aside for the cited PDF
from U.S. GAO (Murphy, 1998, to Sen. Stevens) -- giving a
balanced treatment of the material covered in these two
paragraphs would expand
this article
pretty far beyond the Telecommunications Act of 1996 itself.
I think the episode with USF is its
own page in history, essentially (Congress did not ask the FCC
to overstep its authority, if that is what happened).
Certainly the Telecommunications Act of 1996 didn't ask the
FCC to misstep.  So. It would be a matter to pursue in the FCC
tree of articles on Wikipedia, or perhaps a collection of
articles revolving around general misapproprations of funds
and all that.
The Act itself (IMO) ought to be documented on its face, here.
There's enough to it, to have to describe it in multiple pages
(thousands of words) without wading deeply into its perceived
failings.  That is, its
provisions
haven't been described in much detail here, and we're already
jumping in with the nooses and the pitchforks.
To editorialize a bit further…
Law has an interesting side to it .. it is interpreted one way
by those who aren't quite familiar with it (and so largely
obey it) and in another by those quite familiar with it,
looking for ways to interpret it again.
Telecommunications Laws do affect the non-specialist, and they
also have fairly honorable intentions, within a certain frame
of reference.  Very little has been written (in the article
under consideration) about the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
itself.  Communications Law is interesting if you're in
the frame of mind to work within it.
I think a Wikipedia article should assist that goal, primarily.
Nothing wrong with links to other (critical or noncritical)
documents, but if it's done the other way, there's a hollow
center where the Act itself was not discussed.
I've put in some references late last week that point to the
proceedings on the Senate Floor (as documented by the Library
of Congress).  The stuff is fairly accessible.  --Tetonca 12:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Universal Service paragraphs (2)

message: I just made major changes to the structure and content of the article. I modeled the structure after No Child Left Behind. I tried to remove POV without altering the current content. When time allows, I intend to take the suggestion of User:Tetonca and expand the coverage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, itself. PuerExMachina 03:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be useful to have a section describing the aftermath/results of the act, such as Clear Channel Communications becoming the "largest owner of full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations" in the US. -M.nelson (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah come on, no controversies / aftermath section? Dude "Man in the Box" from Alice in Chains has been on the damn radio for 21 YEARS now, no one sees anything unusual about that? Really? Picture 1981, "Crazy Train" from Ozzy was just played on the radio, and imagine for the next song they play "The Twist" from Chubby Checker,  not only that but "The Twist" continuously since 1960. That would be the equivalent of hearing "Man in the Box" in 2011, still in heavy air play since 1990. It's like a cockroach walking across a white carpet - how is everyone NOT noticing this? Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup in Progress

message: "The Telecommunications Act was the first bill signed into cyberspace"
This line seems to have been added some time ago, but for the life of me I can't understand what that is even supposed to mean. At best it appears to be a botched joke unless there is something (like of encyclopedic value) that I am missing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.142.27 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have no idea what it means, either. Can someone translate that into modern English? —BlackTerror (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that well over 8 years on from these comments that phrase was still present, and still just as meaningless.  Now removed.  97.86.156.248 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: huh?