The purposes of the Communications Act of 1934 were "regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so f

The purposes of the Communications Act of 1934 were "regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."[1] In other words, it was preventing, or rather, dismantling, a telephone monopoly. The Communications Act 1996 expanded it to support “a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition..."[2] In other words, it was expanding it to cover more than radio and phones. I wonder if the cellphone lock-in policies mentioned in the article (e.g. Carlene, who can't afford the early termination fee) are considered anti-competitive, and therefore could potentially fall under the scope of the 1996 Communications Act? --- [1] http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/61StatL101/ComAct34.html http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/61StatL101/ComAct34.h... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#cite_note-17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934#cit...