Broadband by

Title II is hurting investment. How will – and should – the FCC respond?

How should a regulator respond when their regulations turn out to have unexpected negative side effects or, worse still, when their effects are totally the opposite of what was intended? One would hope that they – levelheaded adults as they are – would acknowledge the imperfections of their rules and reassess their original decisions. However, experience suggests that regulators are less than eager to display such rational behavior. Given the recent evidence regarding the impact of Title II on broadband investment, this character flaw on behalf of regulators might very well end up costing Americans dearly.
Broadband investment by

Title II’s real-world impact on broadband investment

It is a fundamental truth in economics and finance that lower returns or higher risks decrease incentives to invest. Combining the two spells double trouble. The FCC delivered just such a double whammy with its Open Internet Order when it chose to place new, yet often unspecified restrictions on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Almost as if on cue, investments in broadband dropped in the US.

How to level the sharing economy playing field: Deregulate it.

The advent of the sharing economy has brought with it obvious consumer benefits – and some not-so-obvious regulatory responses. There are a number of approaches state and local governments can take going forward, but can they level the playing field without sacrificing the innovation and growth Uber, Airbnb, and others have brought to the table?