Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a high point in the history of telecommunications in the United States. It was coming twelve years after the breakup of AT&T; the Act endeavored to reposition all telecommunications markets in the direction of opposition. The Act imagined antagonism in all telecommunications markets, both in the markets for the numerous elements that included the telecommunications network, along with the final services the network generated. Going on the knowledge of the long distance market, which was distorted from a monopoly to a successfully competitive market over the last twelve years, the Act attempted to endorse opposition in the hitherto dominate local exchange markets. The Act acknowledged the telecommunications network as a network of consistent networks. Telecommunications contributors were obliged to intersect with applicant at any possible point the entrant desires. Most prominently, the Act commanded that current local exchange carriers ("ILECs") lease parts of their network to competitors "at cost"; provide at a wholesale discount to participants any service the ILEC supplies; and charge mutual rates in extinction of calls to their network and to networks of local opponents. Furthermore, the Act demanded that ILECs that came out of the Bell System be acquainted with a number of requirements, counting a public interest test, before they may go into the long distance market. Thus, the Act provided some guards against the sell abroad of ILEC monopoly authority to other parts of the network. Many legal confronts to the Act and its implementation have been increased by the ILECs resulting in very slow completion of the Act, and, in many cases, in no considerable completion of the supplies of the Act. Therefore, more than two years after the passage of the Act, there have been extremely entry and competition in local exchange markets. In reply to the obvious breakdown of the completion Act, there has been a gesticulate of amalgamations in the U.S. telecommunications industry. In that case, telecommunication markets in most cities including Dayton, Ohio have merge together to compensation for its failures.
Before the Telecommunication Act of 1996, Dayton, Ohio had many successful media communication. In the early 50s, there was the nation's first licensed, non-commercial television station was Ohio's WCET, Cincinnati, which went on the air in 1954. By 1960 three more public television stations had been licensed in Ohio. To make sure arranged sustained development of public TV in Ohio and to supply financial support and services to the stations; in 1961 the Ohio General Assembly formed the Ohio Educational Television Network Commission. Therefore, it is clear that Dayton, Ohio's media was better off without the Telecommunication Act of 1996, which had a lot of failures that made companies merge together (OET, 2 2001).
In the following quote, it can be proven that Dayton, Ohio's media was in good standing even before the Act. It is obvious that the Act in 1996 caused more telecommunication failures than they had before it came into effect.
The commission formulated a statewide educational television expansion plan. As a result of this plan several new stations were built and in 1976 a two-way microwave system tied together the 12 public television stations in Ohio. In 1998 a fiber optic interconnection system was completed, replacing the microwave system and providing multiple program and data streams to all OET affiliates. The Richard B. Hull Network Operations Center (NOC) in Columbus serves as the hub of this interconnects system.
Senate Bill 201 which took effect in 1980 extended the powers and interests of the Ohio Educational Television Network Commission to include the educational radio stations in the state. The commission's name was thus changed to the Ohio Educational Broadcasting Network Commission" (OET, 3 2001). So, some thing are better off without any extra help like the Telecommunication Act of 1996 proved since most of its responsibly had failed and caused other companies to merge.
With that in mind, there is more proof of that agreement to be correct in the below quotes.
In 1984 OET's budget included funding for Ohio Radio Reading Services (ORRS). The nine Ohio radio reading services provide spoken information to those who do not have easy access to normal print due to visual loss or physical disability" (OET, 4 2001). Ohio had enough funding to give more to the community in 1984, which makes it clear that the Telecommunication Act of 1996 was not necessary since most of its responsibilities failed as companies had to band together due to its damage.
In 1995, with plans for a complete statewide fiber optic interconnection underway, the General Assembly renamed the agency the Ohio Educational Telecommunications Network Commission to more accurately reflect its expanding role (OET 5, 2001). By this quote, it is extremely that the Act of 1996 was completely not necessary since most media in Ohio including was better off without since they made more money long before it came into effect, causing a lot of telecommunication companies to lose profit and making them merge together.
From research, it is blatantly obvious that Ohio which its city of Dayton has had a great communication media within the last forty years or more. That proves that it could have done without the Telecommunication Act of 1996, which caused a lot of mishaps within the communications market that made some companies merge together so that they could turn a profit. The following quote explains why OET can manage without the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which means it was unnecessary for it to take in effect as when it was established, and causing some major profit loss to many different companies. In other words, instead improving the Communications market, the Act became very hurtful to it and causing a lot of money to be lost within many companies that were in good standing before it came along.
OET has a long tradition of serving Ohio citizens through educational initiatives and putting new technology to use for its affiliates. This remains a primary objective and OET is involved in a wide variety of activities to use the newest technologies to advance its mission. OET is a network hub delivering public TV and public radio programming, in addition to instructional and professional development materials, throughout Ohio with a mix of satellite, fiber and broadcast technologies. The OET Operations Center in Columbus uses a fiber interconnection system to link each public telecommunications outlet in the state. Using its array of satellite antennas, OET is able to uplink and downlink programming and either record and store the material in its library to feed on request, or pass in directly to the station for broadcast. With the fiber system, and a sophisticated scheduling system, OET and its network of stations and services have a major tool in place to handle increased programming and expand educational services to schools" (OET, 6 2001). By standing on its own, the OET has surpass the corruption of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 that caused a lot of communication companies to merge together to obtain a profit.
With the following facts, it is made clear after the Act of 1996; OET overcame the problem that most telecommunication companies could not when it was establish. "Ohio's public TV stations, along with Ohio Educational Telecommunications (OET), are leading the way in embracing all of the elements of Digital Television, or DTV. When your local public station begins broadcasting a digital signal in the not-so-distant future, they will be committed to providing all the enhanced benefits of DTV to our viewers.
The FCC has already established the new channel assignments and deadlines by which all television stations must be transmitting digital signals. According to this federal mandate, all public television stations must be transmitting digital signals by May 1, 2003 (Telecommunications, 1, 2002). Therefore, despite the troubles that the Act has caused within the telecommunications industry, OET has become a dominant telecommunication company in Ohio.
Describing digital television with words does not substitute for experiencing, seeing, and hearing the difference that DTV and the enhanced elements of high definition, multicasting, and data casting bring to the viewing experience. DTV will bring unique benefits to viewers through the enhancements of multicasting, data casting, along with unmatched picture quality. Perhaps you have already heard the term "enhanced TV." Digital television will truly offer an enhanced experience in television viewing, compared to what we have today. In addition, HDTV, or high definition television, offers a visually stunning element"(Telecommunications, 3 2002). With all of the technology that OET has invest in, they have clearly went their own way without the effects of the Telecommunication Act of 1996.
Since the arrival of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, obviously there has been new technology with the telecommunication market, which OET and other companies have obtained within themselves.
With DTV broadcasting, the audio, video and data signals are transmitted as a series of 1s and 0s, just as in your computer. With digital you do not experience any degradation of signal quality during transmission. However, if you lose…