Professor John Mayo Reflects on 30 Years of the Telecommunications Act
Posted in News News - Digital Economy policy-focus Research
At a recent panel discussion hosted by the American Enterprise Institute reflecting on the lessons learned from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, John Mayo, executive director of the Center for Business and Public Policy at Georgetown McDonough and Elsa Carlson McDonough Chair in Business Administration, offered an economic perspective on what the landmark law teaches about policy reform and its limits.
Mayo framed the Act as the product of economic forces converging at the right moment. By the early to mid-1990s, he argued, the conditions for reform were in place: technological change was accelerating, competitors were challenging legacy monopolies, and regulators were grappling with inconsistent state-by-state approaches. At the same time, the political climate was receptive to legislation that was “pro-competitive in nature and deregulatory in nature.”
Central to Mayo’s analysis is the idea that major legislative change occurs when key forces fall out of balance. In telecommunications, he identified three enduring drivers of policy change:
- technological change
- market competitors
- regulators
When those forces are aligned, sweeping reform is unlikely. But “when they are in disequilibrium,” he said, “you can start looking for legislative change.”
The breakup of AT&T, rapid innovation in fiber and wireless technologies, and fragmented regulatory battles across states created precisely that kind of disequilibrium. The Telecommunications Act, in this view, was less a singular political breakthrough and more the inevitable resolution of mounting structural tensions.
Reflecting on what has been learned since 1996, Mayo cautioned that isolating the Act’s precise economic effects is difficult. The law coincided with the explosion of cellular demand and the commercial rise of the internet – transformations that reshaped markets so fundamentally that earlier distinctions between “local” and “long-distance” service quickly became obsolete. As a result, he noted, scholars have produced “a lot more reflection than research” when evaluating the Act’s impact.
Even so, Mayo pointed to clear long-term trends that matter to consumers: prices have fallen, innovation has accelerated, quality has improved, usage has soared, and private-sector investment remains strong. While the counterfactual cannot be proven, he suggested that intuition (supported by these broad metrics) indicates the Act contributed to these outcomes.
Across the event, panelists debated unfinished business: from universal service reform to spectrum policy and Congress’ diminished role in technology governance. But Mayo’s remarks underscored a broader takeaway from 30 years of experience: communications policy does not operate in a vacuum. It is shaped by evolving technologies, competitive dynamics, and regulatory structures, and reform tends to emerge when those forces fall out of sync.
