ure in which the RBOC had to file its reasons with the District Court as to why it should be able to expand services to consumers without hindering competition. This pro- cess under the MFJ caused the United States to fall behind other countries in technological innovation. In addition, the MFJ de- creased long distance competition, since it banned the RBOCs from providing it. The shortcomings of the MFJ resulted in Congress updat- ing the 1934 act by passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act attempted to level the playing field for competition in the local telephone service market and enabled RBOCs to offer long distance service. Part of the Act applies to all telecommu- nications service providers, including the RBOCs. It states that it is the "general duty of telecommunications carriers is to in- terconnect directly or indirectly with other telecommunications carriers." It also states that they must (1) resell services on rea- sonable terms (2) provide telephone number portability (3) permit competitors to have access to telephone numbers, op- erator assistance and directory assistance without unreasonable delay (4) give competitors access to telecommunications equip- ment such as poles and conduits and (5) they must provide The Telecom Handbook 92 303 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE reciprocal compensation for the transport and termination of tele- communications. One of the results of this is that the new competitors to the traditional local telephone company can rent cables from them to deliver the competing services. Another part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 per- mits an RBOC to offer long distance services within its home region providing it complies with safeguards outlined in the Act (in terms of allowing local competition). There are also provi- sions enabling the RBOCs to sell information (content) and to manufacture telecommunications equipment. In the years since the 1996 Act was signed into law, there has been a dramatic consolidation of telecommunications companies and these mergers are