Is the article in the Stanford Law and Policy Review (see below) actually referring to the Telecommunications act of 1996?
<p>While reading <a href="https://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-law-policy-review/online/grabowski_26_stan_l_poly_rev_online_36.pdf" rel="nofollow">this</a> article in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, I came across references to the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.pdf" rel="nofollow">Telecommunications Act of 1996</a> stating that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, different forms of media were subject to varying levels of regulation. Title I of the Act applied to information services, which were not subject to any statutory rules and over which the FCC had limited regulatory authority. Title II applied to telecommunications services and allowed for far more stringent regulation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Contradicting this, Title 1 of the Act is "TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES", and Title 2 is "BROADCAST SERVICES".</p>

<p>What was the SLPR referring to in that paper? Were they just paraphrasing, or were they referring to something else?</p>

<p>What they're really referring to is the act that the Telecommunications Act was largely an amendment of: the Communications Act of 1934. This is the big law the FCC deals with; in the vast majority of cases, someone citing a provision of telecommunications law (that's not FCC regulations) is citing this act. Title I of the act, like in many big setting-up-a-field-of-government-regulation acts, is general provisions; this is what the FCC can do for <em>all</em> forms of communication. Title II is common carriers; the Telecommunications Act inserted definitions that established that telecommunications service providers were normally common carriers regulated under Title II of the Communications Act.</p>

united-states internet fcc