Thirty years ago, Washington did something remarkable.
In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act – a sweeping rewrite of communications law that reshaped an entire sector of the economy. It was bipartisan. It was forward-looking. And perhaps most striking in hindsight: it showed restraint.
The law that helped set the stage for the internet age barely mentioned the internet at all.
That wasn’t an oversight. It was wisdom.
Back then, technology meant a landline on the kitchen wall, a TV with rabbit ears, maybe a pager on your belt if you were important enough. None of the computing firepower we now carry in our pockets — smartphones, apps, cloud services, AI tools — existed in anything like their current form.
Lawmakers recognized they could not predict what was coming. So instead of trying to write rules for technologies they didn’t yet understand, they focused on principles — competition, openness, investment — and left room for innovation to run.
What did the Telecommunications Act get right?
Of course, the 1996 act didn’t get everything right, but it reflected a clear reality: the Communications Act of 1934 — a Depression-era framework modeled on railroad regulation — could not be America’s blueprint in a fast-emerging digital world.
Lawmakers voted to break from the past, allowing historical monopolies to give way to competition, ultimately unleashing the myriad of choices among telecom, cable, wireless and satellite technologies we have today. They chose a light touch, confident that consumers’ choices in a rapidly evolving market would take the nation much farther than prescriptive government rules ever could.
Their restraint helped fuel the first great wave of the internet economy. American companies led. American workers benefited. Entire industries were born. And the U.S. became the global standard-setter not by micromanaging innovation, but by letting it breathe.
Fast forward to today.
We’re standing at the dawn of another technological shift — one that will shape jobs, national security, economic growth and global competitiveness. But this time, the pace of change makes 1996 look leisurely.
We can’t realistically talk about the next 30 years anymore. We’re struggling to see the next two.
What mindset do we need?
And yet, when it comes to innovation policy, the reflex for many in Washington is still to ask: What rules can we write?
That mindset made more sense when change moved slowly. It’s far less workable when innovation evolves in real time. The lesson of 1996 isn’t that government should step back entirely. It’s that government should be clear-eyed about its role.
Then, policymakers focused on enabling innovation and investment, not prescribing its path. They recognized that technology would outrun static rules. And they understood that America’s strength came from adaptability.
That’s the mindset we need again.
A modern policy approach should start with clear national interests: good jobs, a strong economy, resilient infrastructure, public safety, and global competitiveness. The question then becomes not how much can be regulated, but how government can work constructively, nimbly, and in partnership with the innovation ecosystem to advance those goals.
Thankfully, champions on both sides of the aisle have taken up the mantle to rethink the role of regulation to unleash innovation, including leaders at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and in Congress.
That means clearing obstacles like redundant permitting processes and unnecessary rate regulation that slow broadband deployment. It means making it easier for providers to upgrade broadband networks instead of forcing customers to stay on outdated technologies like copper.
What does the process require?
This progress requires accepting a humbling truth: no statute or rule, no matter how well intentioned, can future-proof innovation. Flexibility isn’t a weakness. It’s a strategy.
The authors of the Telecom Act didn’t try to script the internet revolution. They created the conditions for it. And America reaped the rewards.
Thirty years later, we should honor that legacy not by freezing it in time, but by embracing its core insight: the most powerful thing government can sometimes do is make room for progress.
If we get that right, the next wave of innovation won’t just happen faster – it will happen here.
Jonathan Spalter is president and CEO of USTelecom, which represents the nation’s broadband providers.
Opinion pieces from industry experts, analysts or our editorial staff do not necessarily represent the opinions of Fierce Network.