 subscribers. Although it's more cost effective to support both voice and data on a single IP network, the rulings' unfortunate consequence is that the transition will likely result in business losses for many of the more than 1,100 small rural providers. It's likely that larger providers will have the resources to bid lower amounts in reverse auctions. Many of these networks will be based on wireless technologies. Continued oversight will be required to ensure that rates in these areas remain on a par with those in more urban locales. The presence of only one provider precludes incentives for carriers that win grants to keep prices low, operate efficiently, or offer new services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 The goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to spur innovation by fostering competition for local services. Local incumbent telephone companies along with former AT&T Corporation (now part of AT&T, Inc.) lobbied for an act that would allow them to expand their offerings. The act laid out provisions that allowed incum- bent local telephone companies to sell the out-of-region long-distance service that the 1984 divestiture had barred them from offering. The act also decreed that for the first time, cable TV operators, electric utilities, broadcasters, interexchange carriers, and competitive local exchange providers could sell local calling, toll calling, and related services. This provision allowed the former AT&T, which was then an interexchange carrier, to resume selling local services. To encourage competition for local services, the act prescribed rules enabling competitors to connect to the central offices of incumbent phone companies at man- dated discounted rates. However, most of these connectivity rules were gradually rescinded when large incumbents such as the former Regional Bell Operating Com- panies (RBOCs) challenged the rules in court and won. For a list of these rulings, see Table 3-11 in the "Appendix" section at the end of this chapter. Telecommunications Act of 1996 Mandated Fee