Unintended consequences and lessons learned

C. Wexler, M. Boyle, Matthew Shaffer, M. Cooper
{"title":"Unintended consequences and lessons learned","authors":"C. Wexler, M. Boyle, Matthew Shaffer, M. Cooper","doi":"10.1787/98ecb830-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"collected and analyzed the federal campaign finance and lobbying data for this report from records compiled by the Federal Election Commission and Secretary of the Senate, respectively. Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, was an invaluable guide and resource for this report. Established by Common Cause in February 2000 as a separately chartered (501)(c) (3) organization, the Common Cause Education Fund (CCEF) seeks to promote open, honest and accountable government through research, public education and innovative programs. This study tells the story of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its aftermath. In many ways, the Telecom Act failed to serve the public and did not deliver on its promise of more competition, more diversity, lower prices, more jobs and a booming economy. Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices. Over 10 years, the legislation was supposed to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion in lower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills. But cable rates have surged by about 50 percent, and local phone rates went up more than 20 percent. Industries supporting the new legislation predicted it would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy by $2 trillion. By 2003, however, telecommunications' companies' market value had fallen by about $2 trillion, and they had shed half a million jobs. And study after study has documented that profit-driven media conglomerates are investing less in news and information, and that local news in particular is failing to provide viewers with the information they need to participate in their democracy Why did this happen? In some cases, industries agreed to the terms of the Act and then went to court to block them. By leaving regulatory discretion to the Federal Communications Commission, the Act gave the FCC the power to issue rules that often sabotaged the intent of Congress. Control of the House passed from Democrats to Republicans, more sympathetic to corporate arguments for deregulation. And while corporate special interests all had a seat at the table when this bill was being negotiated, the public did not. Nor were average citizens even aware of this legislation's great impact on how they got their entertainment and information, and whether it would foster or discourage diversity of viewpoints and a marketplace of ideas, crucial to democratic discourse. Now, as Congress once again takes …","PeriodicalId":130008,"journal":{"name":"Adapting Curriculum to Bridge Equity Gaps","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Adapting Curriculum to Bridge Equity Gaps","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1787/98ecb830-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

collected and analyzed the federal campaign finance and lobbying data for this report from records compiled by the Federal Election Commission and Secretary of the Senate, respectively. Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, was an invaluable guide and resource for this report. Established by Common Cause in February 2000 as a separately chartered (501)(c) (3) organization, the Common Cause Education Fund (CCEF) seeks to promote open, honest and accountable government through research, public education and innovative programs. This study tells the story of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its aftermath. In many ways, the Telecom Act failed to serve the public and did not deliver on its promise of more competition, more diversity, lower prices, more jobs and a booming economy. Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices. Over 10 years, the legislation was supposed to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion in lower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills. But cable rates have surged by about 50 percent, and local phone rates went up more than 20 percent. Industries supporting the new legislation predicted it would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy by $2 trillion. By 2003, however, telecommunications' companies' market value had fallen by about $2 trillion, and they had shed half a million jobs. And study after study has documented that profit-driven media conglomerates are investing less in news and information, and that local news in particular is failing to provide viewers with the information they need to participate in their democracy Why did this happen? In some cases, industries agreed to the terms of the Act and then went to court to block them. By leaving regulatory discretion to the Federal Communications Commission, the Act gave the FCC the power to issue rules that often sabotaged the intent of Congress. Control of the House passed from Democrats to Republicans, more sympathetic to corporate arguments for deregulation. And while corporate special interests all had a seat at the table when this bill was being negotiated, the public did not. Nor were average citizens even aware of this legislation's great impact on how they got their entertainment and information, and whether it would foster or discourage diversity of viewpoints and a marketplace of ideas, crucial to democratic discourse. Now, as Congress once again takes …
意想不到的后果和教训
从联邦选举委员会和参议院秘书分别汇编的记录中收集并分析了本报告的联邦竞选资金和游说数据。美国消费者联合会研究部主任马克·库珀为这份报告提供了宝贵的指导和资源。共同事业教育基金(CCEF)于2000年2月由共同事业成立,是一个独立的特许组织(第501 (c)(3)条),旨在通过研究、公共教育和创新项目促进开放、诚实和负责任的政府。本研究讲述了1996年电信法案及其后果的故事。在许多方面,《电信法》未能为公众服务,也没有兑现其带来更多竞争、更多样化、更低价格、更多就业机会和繁荣经济的承诺。相反,公众得到了更多的媒体集中,更少的多样性和更高的价格。在10年的时间里,这项立法本应为消费者节省5500亿美元,其中包括3330亿美元的长途电话费用,320亿美元的本地电话费用和780亿美元的有线电视费用。但是有线电视的费用飙升了50%,本地电话的费用上涨了20%以上。支持这项新立法的行业预测,它将增加150万个就业岗位,并推动经济增长2万亿美元。然而,到2003年,电信公司的市值下降了约2万亿美元,裁员50万人。一项又一项的研究证明,以利润为导向的媒体集团在新闻和信息方面的投资越来越少,尤其是地方新闻,无法为观众提供参与民主所需的信息。为什么会发生这种情况?在某些情况下,行业同意法案的条款,然后诉诸法院阻止它们。通过将监管自由裁量权留给联邦通信委员会,该法案赋予了联邦通信委员会发布规则的权力,这些规则往往会破坏国会的意图。众议院的控制权从民主党人转移到共和党人手中,共和党人更赞同企业要求放松管制的主张。虽然在这项法案的谈判过程中,所有企业的特殊利益集团都有一席之地,但公众却没有。普通公民甚至没有意识到这项立法对他们如何获得娱乐和信息的巨大影响,以及它是否会促进或阻碍对民主话语至关重要的观点多样性和思想市场。现在,国会再一次采取……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信