Telecommunications Reform in the United States: Promises and Pitfalls

  • Marius Schwartz


The United States Congress recently enacted sweeping legislation to overhaul the rules governing competition in telecommunications services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (see CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1996) is the first major rewrite of the Communications Act of 1934. It also supersedes the 1982 antitrust consent decree that broke up AT&T and barred the seven new regional Bell operating companies (“Bells”) from manufacturing equipment and offering long-distance service.


Telephone Service Natural Monopoly Local Competition Universal Service Telephone Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BRENNAN, T.J. (1987), “Why Regulated Firms Should Be Kept Out of Unregulated Markets: Understanding the Divestiture in U.S. v. AT&T,” Antitrust Bulletin vol. 32.Google Scholar
  2. BRENNAN, T.J. (1995), “Is the Theory Behind U.S. v. AT&T Applicable Today?” forthcoming, Antitrust Bulletin vol. 40, no. 3.Google Scholar
  3. BROCK, G.W. (1994), Telecommunication Policy for the Information Age: From Monopoly to Competition, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. BROWN, S.J. and D.S. SIBLEY (1994), The Theory of Public Utility Pricing, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cauley, L. (1995), “Calls Waiting: Rivals Are Hung Up On Baby Bells’ Control Over Local Markets,” The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, October 24, 1995, Al.Google Scholar
  6. Congressional Quarterly (1995), “The Fine Print: A Side-by-Side Comparison of the House and Senate Telecommunications Bills,” Special Report, September 23, 1995, vol. 53, Supplement to No. 37.Google Scholar
  7. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (1996), “Conference Report on S. 652, Telecommunications Act of 1996,” and “Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference,” vol. 142, January 1996, H1078-H1135.Google Scholar
  8. CRAMTON, P.C. (1995), “The PCS Spectrum Auctions: An Early Assessment,” mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  9. CRANDALL, R. and L. WAVERMAN (1995), Talk Is Cheap: The Promise of Regulatory_Reform in North American Telecommunications. The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  10. Economic Report Of The President, February 1996, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  11. GORE, A. (1995), “Remarks Delivered by Vice President Gore to the Networked Economy Conference,” Washington DC, September 12, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. KWEREL, E.R., and J.R. WILLIAMS (1993), “Moving toward a Market for Spectrum,” Regulation: Cato Review of Business & Government, 1993 No. 2, 53–62.Google Scholar
  13. LAFFONT, J.-J., and J. TIROLE (1993), A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation. MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. Laffont, J.-J. and J. Tirole (1996), “Creating Competition Through Interconnection: Theory and Practice,” manuscript, Institut d’Economie Industrielle, Toulouse.Google Scholar
  15. LEWIS, W. (1995), “Telecoms Regulator to Face Public,” Financial Times Weekend, November 18/19, 1995, page 4.Google Scholar
  16. PEARL, D. (1995), “Good Connections: Despite Deregulation, Rural Phone Subsidies Are Likely to Survive,” The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, November 30, 1995, A1.Google Scholar
  17. SCHWARTZ, M. (1986a), “The Nature and Scope of Contestability Theory,” Oxford Economic Papers vol. 38 Supplement, November 1986, 37–57.Google Scholar
  18. SCHWARTZ, M. (1986b), “The Perverse Effects of the Robinson-Patman Act,” Antitrust Bulletin vol. 31, no. 3, Fall 1986.Google Scholar
  19. United States v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 524 Federal Supplement 1336 (1981).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marius Schwartz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations