House hearing urges update to 1996 Telecommunications Act as broadband, AI reshape communications

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Thursday used the 30th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to press for updates to a statute many said has not kept pace with broadband, streaming platforms and artificial intelligence.

Subcommittee Chair Hudson opened the session by calling the 1996 law a milestone that "helped create the Internet economy" but said the rapid rise of broadband, smartphones and AI make it time for Congress to consider reforms. "The world of 1996 looks nothing like the world today, and it's time we update our laws to reflect that," he said in his opening remarks.

Why it matters: Members and witnesses agreed the act's core goals — competition, innovation and universal service — remain relevant, but they diverged on how to protect consumers and preserve competition. The hearing highlighted three recurring flashpoints: how to fund and deploy broadband to underserved areas, whether and how to constrain agency discretion at the Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and how to treat platform liability for AI-generated content.

Witnesses representing industry and public-interest groups offered sharply different prescriptions. Chip Pickering, chief executive of Encompass, credited the law with unleashing competition and private investment and urged a technology-neutral approach that treats fiber as the foundation for next-generation networks. "Fiber is still the foundation of every network," Pickering said.

Michael O27Rielly, a former FCC commissioner, urged Congress to write clearer statutory guardrails and not to rely on implementing agencies to fill gaps in legislative intent. "Explain in great detail what you want an agency to do and, more importantly, what you do not want them to do," he told members.

Matt Wood of Free Press argued for stronger federal oversight to ensure affordable broadband and to hold companies accountable when platform design or AI tools cause harm. "When a company knows it's causing harm and we can show that, then that's when they should be held to account," Wood said.

Major themes from members' questioning:

- Broadband deployment and BEAD. Members from rural and urban districts faulted administrative delays that have slowed state BEAD plans and urged permitting reforms, more local capacity, and better accountability to ensure federal dollars produce durable, high-capacity networks.

- Universal Service and Lifeline funding. Lawmakers pressed witnesses about modernizing the Universal Service Fund and Lifeline to improve affordability, with some witnesses recommending appropriation-level funding or contribution reform while others warned against shifting costs to consumers.

- Agency authority and media consolidation. Several members criticized recent FCC actions, including a media-bureau approval tied to the Nexstar20TEGNA transaction, and questioned whether the FCC has authority to waive statutory ownership caps without congressional action.

- Section 230 and AI. Members pressed whether section 230 should continue to shield platforms from liability for AI-generated content. Witnesses urged targeted reforms to protect children and to apply product-design or distributor-liability concepts where a company knowingly deploys tools that cause harm, while stopping short of wholesale repeal.

The hearing closed with members urging bipartisan work to craft precise statutory language and implementable reforms. The chair reminded members to submit written questions for the record and adjourned the subcommittee.

What's next: Members may use testimony and follow-up questions to craft narrower bills on permitting, BEAD implementation support, and targeted changes addressing children's safety online and agency transparency.