Another Example of the Data-Driven Economy Outrunning Regulators

Utah’s insurance regulators need to move into the 21st century. Apparently they have threatened to fine a company, Zenefits, for offering free human resource software. From Fortune:

Zenefits’ software helps small businesses manage all of their human resources functions in one place, such as health insurance, payroll, retirement funds and equity grants. The company gives its software away for free, taking a commission from vendors like insurance providers or brokerages.

(snip)

Insurance providers have no problem with Zenefits, Conrad says, because the company sends them new clients. But the brokers—those middlemen from whom Zenefits is stealing commissions—face an obvious threat. (Zenefits is itself a licensed insurance broker.) 

(snip)

This week that threat manifested itself in the form of a regulatory fight: Utah has moved to ban Zenefits from offering its software for free in the state. Utah Insurance Commissioner Todd Kiser sent a letter to the company outlining the ways Zenefits is breaking the law by offering free software.

Enough said.

Why Obamacare is the heart of the new pro-growth, pro-middle class, pro-entrepreneur Democratic Party (sorry, Senator Schumer)

Senator Schumer has made a plausible argument for why Obamacare was a political mistake.  I disagree. Democratic politicians have mainly defended Obamacare on the grounds of access, fairness and cost containment. But in the process, Democrats have missed an opportunity to show how Obamacare is a platform for entrepreneurial growth. Framed correctly, Obamacare could turn out to be the heart of the new pro-growth,  pro-middle class, pro-production Democratic Party.

Consider this. When I left BusinessWeek in 2009, I started my own company, Visible Economy,  making news and education videos (the website and the business, alas, are no longer active).  As a budding not-so-young entrepreneur, the only reason I had that choice was because I could carry over healthcare coverage from my previous employer. If I had no health insurance, I couldn’t have started the business.

Obamacare allows almost anyone who wants to start a business to do so, without fear of being excluded from healthcare coverage because of age or pre-existing conditions. This is a big deal, for two reasons. First, because any sane middle-class person will think twice about starting a new business if they can’t get healthcare coverage (“entrepreneur lock“).

Second, Democrats who embrace a pro-growth, pro-innovation message can go to voters with Obamacare as an opening example of what the party is willing to do for the middle class.  The pro-growth message will increasingly resonate over time, especially if the party backs up Obamacare with additional pro-growth reforms, such as smart regulation and less reliance on onerous and regressive fees and fines on the local level (that turned out to be a big part of the issue in Ferguson).

From a political perspective,  Obamacare can unite the Democratic party. PPI has long strongly supported ACA-like universal healthcare coverage. That goal resonates with the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic party as well. Obamacare brings poor working families into the healthcare system, and at least up to now, appears to be slowing the rate of health care cost increases.

It was inevitable that whichever party initiated healthcare reform was going to take political damage–that’s why it took so long.  Now Democrats need to use Obamacare as a key building block of their pro-growth message.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Daily Caller: Who Pays For Net Neutrality?

A new report by PPI Senior Fellow Hal Singer and Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Robert Litan, Outdated Regulations Will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband, was covered in a story by The Daily Caller:

“Outdated Regulations will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband” — a recent study by Robert Litan and Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute entitled — quantifies the extra taxes and fees that apply to Title II utility telecommunications service, but not Internet service. The study conservatively estimates that new Title II utility regulations would increase broadband taxes and fees $17 billion or roughly $85 per American household per year.

Read the article in its entirety at The Daily Caller.

Hacking the Regulatory State: The FDA

I am speaking Thursday at a Cato conference on The Future of U.S. Economic Growth, with a politically diverse group of speakers including Martin Baily, Robert Gordon, Brad DeLong and Erik Brynjolfsson. My panel is entitled”What is to be done?,” and focuses on feasible policy solutions.

In preparation for the conference, I put together an essay on “Hacking the Regulatory State.” Part of the essay covers the need for a Regulatory Improvement Commission, but I also laid out some ways that the FDA can be reformed to speed up economic growth. Here’s an excerpt from the essay:

2. Approval Criteria at the FDA

The FDA is one of the fastest growing agencies in the federal government. In 2000, the FDA employed 12 workers for every 1,000 in the pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical equipment industries.  Now the FDA employs 18 workers for every 1000 private-sector pharmaceutical, biotech, and medtech workers.

Not surprisingly, the intensity of FDA regulation has also increased by 40 percent since 2000, according to a recent paper from the Progressive Policy Institute (Carew, 2014). That’s based on a new measure of regulatory intensity that applies a semantic analysis of written rules, looking for such restrictive words as “shall” and “must” (Al-Ubaydli and McLaughlin, 2014).

The same period has also been notable for an extraordinary amount of public and private spending on biosciences R&D. In 2012, for example, U.S. industry, government, and academic institutions spent roughly $100 billion on biosciences-related research and development, second only to the roughly $125 billion invested in computer and information sciences-related R&D. In recent years biosciences R&D has averaged somewhere between one-third and one-quarter of total civilian R&D.

This R&D spending has propelled tremendous scientific advances over this stretch. Yet so far, too few of these scientific advances have been translated into usable innovation. This problem is well-accepted. NIH set up a new National Center for Advancing Translational Science in fiscal year 2012, specifically to “develop innovations to reduce, remove or bypass costly and time-consuming bottlenecks in the translational research pipeline in an effort to speed the delivery of new drugs, diagnostics and medical devices to patients.”

I will argue here that accelerating commercial innovation in biosciences requires “recoding” the criteria by which the FDA approves new drugs and devices. In particular, the sole focus on “safety and efficacy” has the effect of almost guaranteeing that potential disruptive innovations are not approved. What’s more, the pharmaceutical and device companies have a deep understanding of the FDA’s approval process, and therefore they do not pursue such disruptive innovations. Similarly, venture capitalists shy away from funding innovations that are not approvable.

Here I’m using the disruptive innovation in the classic Clayton Christensen sense — a product or service that starts out with somewhat worse performance than what’s on the market right now, but much better economic or other characteristics. So when mobile phones originally were being widely sold, the quality of calls was lower than using wired handsets. Similarly, the early personal computers were far less powerful than mainframes or minis.

The problem is that the FDA interprets the “safety and efficacy” standard as meaning at least as safe and clinically efficacious as anything on the market currently. That immediately rules out an innovation that is safe, much cheaper, but not as efficacious as best medical practice. So if the FDA had been in charge of the phone or computer markets at the time, early mobile phones and personal computers would have not been approved for sale because they provided inferior quality to existing products.

As a result, the FDA approval criteria systematically screen out disruptive innovations. What’s more, the pharmaceutical and device companies, and even the venture capitalist supporting start-ups, are all too aware of the FDA’s decision-making process,  and are therefore unwilling to fund potential disruptive innovations.

What’s the solution? First, don’t weaken the safety requirement at all. The FDA is a key guardian against harmful products.

Second, separate the efficacy requirement into two parts — clinical efficacy, and economic efficacy. Allow innovating companies to present evidence that their potential new product reduces the amount of labor and other resources needed by the healthcare system, as compared to existing products or treatments. A new product needs to show both clinical efficacy and economic efficacy, but needs to be superior to existing products on just one of those measures.

Such a broadening of the FDA approval criteria won’t be easy to put into place, but could have enormous impacts on the incentives for research and development. If we want medical innovation and lower costs, we need to change the rules of the game.

 

 

 

 

Outdated Regulations Will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband

Self-styled consumer advocates are pressuring federal regulators to “reclassify” access to the Internet as a public utility. If they get their way, U.S. consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for both residential fixed and wireless broadband services.

How deep? We have calculated that the average annual increase in state and local fees levied on U.S. wireline and wireless broadband subscribers will be $67 and $72, respectively. And the annual increase in federal fees per household will be roughly $17. When you add it all up, reclassification could add a whopping $15 billion in new user fees on top of the planned $1.5 billion extra to fund the E-Rate program. The higher fees would come on top of the adverse impact on consumers of less investment and slower innovation that would result from reclassification.

How did we reach this precipice? In early November, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler floated a “hybrid” compromise that would have deemed Internet service providers (ISPs)—telcos and cable companies—as public utilities under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 for purposes of their dealings with websites, such as Netflix. But when it came to the rates and download speeds offered to broadband customers, ISPs would continue to be subject to “light touch” regulation under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which directs the Commission to promote broadband deployment. This would allow them to give their customers choices: those who were willing to pay more for higher speeds could. Think of it as being willing to pay more to take the faster Acela train as opposed to the regular Amtrak line.

Download “2014.12-Litan-Singer_Outdated-Regulations-Will-Make-Consumers-Pay-More-for-Broadband/”

Multichannel News: Consumer Bills Could Soar Under Title II

A new report by PPI Senior Fellow Hal Singer and Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Robert Litan, Outdated Regulations Will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband, was covered in a story by Multichannel News:

Consumers’ broadband bills could go up close to $90 a year if the FCC reclassifies Internet access service under Title II common carrier regs, according to an analysis by the Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute and Robert Litan of Brookings.

According to a paper being released today (Dec. 1), the average increase in state and local fees on wireline, and potentially wireless, broadband, would be $67 and $72 annually, plus an added $17 per year in federal fees.

Added together, they argue that reclassification could add up to $17 billion new fees on top of the $1.5 billion the FCC is planning to add to the E-rate Universal Service Fund to promote higher-speed broadband connections to schools and libraries.

Read the article in its entirety at Multichannel News.

Consumers’ broadband bills could go up close to $90 a year if the FCC reclassifies Internet access service under Title II common carrier regs, according to an analysis by the *Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute and **Robert Litan of Brookings.

 

According to a paper being released today (Dec. 1), the average increase in state and local fees on wireline, and potentially wireless, broadband, would be $67 and $72 annually, plus an added $17 per year in federal fees.

 

Added together, they argue that reclassification could add up to $17 billion new fees on top of the $1.5 billion the FCC is planning to add to the E-rate Universal Service Fund to promote higher-speed broadband connections to schools and libraries.

– See more at: https://www.multichannel.com/news/policy/analysis-consumer-bills-could-soar-under-title-ii/385929#sthash.ej78Tuxq.dpuf

Consumers’ broadband bills could go up close to $90 a year if the FCC reclassifies Internet access service under Title II common carrier regs, according to an analysis by the *Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute and **Robert Litan of Brookings.

 

According to a paper being released today (Dec. 1), the average increase in state and local fees on wireline, and potentially wireless, broadband, would be $67 and $72 annually, plus an added $17 per year in federal fees.

 

Added together, they argue that reclassification could add up to $17 billion new fees on top of the $1.5 billion the FCC is planning to add to the E-rate Universal Service Fund to promote higher-speed broadband connections to schools and libraries.

– See more at: https://www.multichannel.com/news/policy/analysis-consumer-bills-could-soar-under-title-ii/385929#sthash.ej78Tuxq.dpuf

Consumers’ broadband bills could go up close to $90 a year if the FCC reclassifies Internet access service under Title II common carrier regs, according to an analysis by the *Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute and **Robert Litan of Brookings.

 

According to a paper being released today (Dec. 1), the average increase in state and local fees on wireline, and potentially wireless, broadband, would be $67 and $72 annually, plus an added $17 per year in federal fees.

 

Added together, they argue that reclassification could add up to $17 billion new fees on top of the $1.5 billion the FCC is planning to add to the E-rate Universal Service Fund to promote higher-speed broadband connections to schools and libraries.

– See more at: https://www.multichannel.com/news/policy/analysis-consumer-bills-could-soar-under-title-ii/385929#sthash.ej78Tuxq.dpuf

Europe should focus on spurring European tech growth

The European Parliament is expected to vote on Thursday on whether Google should be required to spin off its search engine. But that vote — and any subsequent legal action by the European Commission against Google — misses the real questions: Why isn’t Europe able to produce the sort of leading-edge tech companies which seem to routinely come out of the United States, and now, Asia? Where is the European Amazon, Twitter, Samsung or even Alibaba, the Chinese e-commerce company that recently had the biggest global initial public offering ever?

Rather than going after American companies, the European Commission and Parliament should focus on policy changes that would spur European technology growth. In particular, Europe would benefit from boosting spending on research and development; improving the climate for entrepreneurship; and encouraging consumers and businesses to use more data.

Let’s start with research and development spending, which provides essential long-term support for innovative companies. In 2012, Europe spent about 2 percent of gross domestic product (GPD) on research and development. Meanwhile, the United States spent almost 3 percent of GDP on research and development, an enormous gap that has persisted for years. European leaders, aware of the gap, have set a goal of reaching the 3 percent level by 2020. So far, though, there’s been little or no movement in that direction.

Or take support for entrepreneurship. The latest Global Entrepreneurship Index, just released this month, pegs the United States as the top country for entrepreneurship, based on such factors as cultural attitude and availability of risk capital. As the authors of the report note, “the U.S. not only remains the most entrepreneurial country in the world, it also is increasing its lead.” The U.S. has an index score of 85. By contrast, the countries in the European Union have an average index score of 60.1 (weighted by country gross domestic product), and a median index score of 54.5. Some major European countries, such as Italy, make business startups exceedingly difficult. Anything that can be done to make entrepreneurship easier, including relaxing a difficult regulatory environment in some countries, would increase the odds of producing a major tech startup.

Finally, Europe is way behind in the amount of data used per person. Based on a study by Cisco, the Progressive Policy Institute has calculated that European countries such as France and Germany use 22.6 and 18.9 gigabytes of data per person per month, respectively. Meanwhile the United States uses 58.3 gigabytes of data per person per month, triple that of Germany. Just look at data used by business, the differential narrows but is still enormous in relative terms. U.S. businesses use 8.5 gigabytes per capita per month, compared to 4.5 in Germany and 3.7 in France.

Why does data use matter? For Internet companies, data use is a good proxy measure for the size of the potential market. If you want to grow a profitable tech company, it’s easier to do so in the United States, where data consumption is higher. That suggests that if Europe’s leaders want to create the conditions for homegrown tech giants, they should encourage European consumers and businesses to use more data.

It’s easy for politicians to say that they want innovation and growth, and hard for them to take the steps necessary to foster such growth. Taking on Google is an easy shot for the European Parliament, without tackling Europe’s underlying issues.

Read the op-ed on The Hill.

Huffington Post: Entrepeneurs: Engines of our Economic Growth

In a piece penned for the Huffington Post by U.S. Representatives Scott Peters (D-Calif. 52), Ron Kind (D-Wis. 3), and Patrick E. Murphy (D-Fla. 18) on the importance of encouraging entrepreneurship, a study by the Progressive Policy Institute was cited as evidence of current regulatory obstructions.

The Federal Code of Regulations numbers nearly 170,000 pages, and more pages are added to the code almost every single day. An analysis by the Progressive Policy Institute shows that the number of pages in the code more than doubled since 1975. We have a choice: We can either grow the mounds of paper that our entrepreneurs have to sift through to launch new ventures, or we can make the code simpler and easier to navigate, allowing our economy to grow and create new jobs.

Read the entire piece at Huffingtonpost.com.

Outdated cable box rule harms the data-driven economy

Innovating in the digital age requires flexible rules that keep pace with the latest technology. This is especially true in the video services market, where change has been fast and furious. That’s why Congress should act to repeal an expensive and innovation-restricting requirement on the design of set-top cable boxes — without limiting the choice of retail devices that consumers enjoy today.

Currently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandates that each cable box — the electronic device in your home that links your TV with your cable provider — use a particular type of technology known as a “CableCARD.” This is a credit card-sized security device that enables the box to access the channels and other services to which you subscribe. The FCC’s rule, formally known as the “integration ban,” requires that these security functions cannot be hard-wired or otherwise integrated within boxes leased to consumers by their cable company.

The CableCARD requirement is a good example of how not to regulate in the dynamic data-driven economy, a topic on which the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) has written extensively. In this case, the intention behind requiring CableCARDs was to foster a retail marketplace for set-top boxes, similar to telephones. Customers who decided to buy cable boxes instead of leasing them could use the box across different cable providers by obtaining a CableCARD from their provider to access its services. To ensure that cable operators would support CableCARDs, the FCC also required operators to include the cards in their leased set-top boxes.

Continue reading at The Hill.

The Washington Post: Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet would do more harm than good

President Obama’s call this week to regulate the Internet as a public utility is like pushing to replace the engine of a car that runs perfectly well. The U.S. data sector — including wired and wireless broadband — is the envy of the world, administering a powerful boost to consumer welfare, generating high-paying jobs and encouraging tens of billions of dollars in corporate investment. Indeed, the prices of data-related goods and services have dropped by almost 20 percent since 2007.

Putting the Federal Communications Commission in charge of regulating broadband rates and micromanaging Web services, as the president proposes, would slow innovation and raise costs. It would be bad news for the economy. It would also be a serious misstep for the Democratic Party, marking a retreat from market-based, pro-competition policies pioneered by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

The issue here is how best to ensure an open Internet, in which big and small companies alike have unfettered access to customers. After the courts threw out the old open Internet rules in January, virtually all concerned parties agreed the United States needed strong regulations to prevent blocking or discrimination online, to require real transparency for network-management policies by Internet service providers and to ban paid prioritization that could divide the Internet into fast-lane “haves” and slow-lane “have-nots.”

Continue reading at the Washington Post.

The Rise of the Data-driven Consumer

PPI is strongly committed to the success of the data-driven economy.  The beneficiaries of the data-driven economy includes Americans as consumers, workers and citizens. Participants in the data-driven economy includes edge providers,  internet service providers,  and in the future, entities such  as healthcare networks and internet-enabled state and local governments.  We acknowledge that strong differences of opinion exist about the right way to achieve the success of the data-driven economy—notably the debate over Title II regulation of broadband. However, we believe that we all share a vision of how the data-driven economy can benefit Americans.

In that spirit, we share here some of the results from our soon-to-be released paper on data and consumer welfare gains since the recession, by Michael Mandel and Diana Carew.  We analyzed how Americans are consuming data-related goods and services, including everything from cable, wireless, and internet service to computers, software and content.

Here are the main results of our analysis:

  •  The prices of data-related goods and services have dropped by almost 20 percent since 2007.
  •  Real consumption of data-related goods and services per person has risen by 48 percent since 2007.
  • Real consumption per person of all other goods and services—from healthcare to housing to autos to food—is only up 0.9 percent since 2007.
  • As a result, the data sector has been the main force driving average gains in consumer welfare since 2007.  By our estimate, data-related goods and services account for roughly 70 percent of the gain in average consumer welfare over that stretch. *
  • Stunningly, real personal consumption per capita of all goods and services outside of data, healthcare, and housing actually fell by 3.0 percent since 2007. Real consumption per capita has fallen for motor vehicles and parts; furniture; food; jewelry; and even financial services.
  • From this perspective, the recent election was a referendum on what many Americans already know – in the non-data sector, stagnant real wages have failed to keep up with inflation.

Our results show we are truly in a “data-driven economy” – data-related goods and services  are driving post-recession gains in consumer welfare. Outside of health and housing, non-data-related goods and services are simply not part of the story.

Without the success of the data sector, American consumers would be far worse off than they are today.  Whatever we do about regulating the Internet must take into account that it’s the most vibrant sector of the economy.

*In the forthcoming paper, we define average consumer welfare as real personal consumption expenditures per capita. By this measure, average consumer welfare has  risen by 3.1% since the third quarter of 2007.  Of that gain, 0.9%, or roughly 30%,  comes from non-data-related goods and services.  The rest, or 70%,  comes from data-related goods and services.

 

 

NYT: Net Neutrality Debate: Internet Access and Costs Are Top Issues

A policy report by PPI Senior Fellow Hal Singer and Brookings Non-resident Fellow Bob Litan was cited in a New York Times article suggesting that the regulation of broadband Internet with restraint can be achieved through lighter means that does not put at risk other crucial objectives — like broadening access to the Internet and tackling the nation’s very real digital divide.

A report published this year by Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution and Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute recommends “pick the policy that maximizes total investment across the entire Internet ecosystem.”

Read the entire article at The New York Times.

NYT: Obama’s Call for Net Neutrality Sets Up Fight Over Rules

PPI Chief Economic Strategist was interviewed by the New York Times in a story detailing President Obama’s recent endorsement of Title II regulation of broadband Internet and the implications of that endorsement.

But critics of the proposal say regulating Internet service like a utility, without subjecting it to the same aggressive oversight of industries like electricity or water, will be a tough balancing act for the commission.

“Forbearance is a fig leaf here, especially when it comes to big issues like rate regulation,” said Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute, which dislikes the prospect of treating broadband like a utility. “The F.C.C. can forbear easily from day-to-day rate decisions. But I don’t see how they can stay out of that when there are big innovative leaps.”

Mr. Mandel pointed to the introduction of the iPhone as an example. When that device was released, AT&T needed to develop a new type of data service package to charge consumers who wanted to use the iPhone’s ability to connect to the Internet.

Read the entire article at The New York Times.

Regulating the Open Internet: A Letter to Pro-growth Progressives

To Whom It May Concern:

As Democrats who care about the dual priorities of protecting broadband consumers and stimulating broadband investment, we are gravely concerned about President Obama’s endorsement today of monopoly-era, common carrier regulations (called “Title II”) for broadband providers. The president’s proposal does not balance these goals, nor move us towards compromise on other, arguably more critical, communications issues.

First, Title II is not necessary to protect consumers from the hypothetical threat of discrimination by broadband providers against edge providers. In Verizon v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit made clear that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could regulate pay-for-priority deals—and even reverse them after the fact—under Section 706 of the 1996 Act.

Second, Title II itself isn’t guaranteed to stop pay-for-priority by broadband service providers. Title II would merely require that the terms of any pay-for-priority deal be extended to all comers. The monopoly-era cases of generations ago in which the FCC used Title II to proscribe “inherently unjust” conduct have nothing to do with a competitive broadband provider offering paid priority. Thus, the prospect that Title II could be used to bar pay-for-priority deals is very small.

Third, the more likely rationale for imposing Title II is to pursue an aggressive regulatory agenda unrelated to net neutrality, in particular, “unbundling,” the policy that requires companies that make investments in broadband infrastructure to share them with competitors at government-set prices. But when this policy was ended in the decade following the bi-partisan 1996 Act, an explosion of investment by telcos and cable companies in broadband infrastructure resulted, which allowed the U.S. to catch up to the rest of the world. Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations supported this consensus. Moving backwards to a forced-sharing regime would likely chill broadband investment, along with its job-creation and impact on growth, and preserve the “digital divide.”

Fourth, the net neutrality saga has diverted the FCC’s resources for nearly a decade. By eschewing real compromise made possible by the D.C. Circuit Court, and instead pursuing a radical prescription of Title II, the FCC guarantees itself a drawn-out litigation battle with broadband providers. Other, more critical policies, such as broadband deployment in underserved areas and freeing up spectrum for wireless, will sit on the back burner.

Broadband providers have made clear they would not challenge net neutrality rules based on the FCC’s Section 706 authority, so long as the rules made some effort to accommodate arrangements with edge providers that led to new and improved services. That compromise would be consistent with the desire expressed by the American electorate to find the middle ground and reject extreme intervention in the U.S. economy.

Sincerely,

Ev Ehrlich, PPI Senior Fellow

Michael Mandel, PPI Chief Economic Strategist

Hal Singer, PPI Senior Fellow

PPI Statement on President Obama’s Endorsement of Title II Regulation

PPI President Will Marshall released the following statement today after President Obama’s announcement urging the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to regulate broadband Internet as a public utility under its Title II authority:

“’I hear you,’ President Obama assured voters in his post-midterm press conference last week. But his endorsement today of subjecting the Internet to heavy-handed regulation suggests otherwise.

“In fact, the president’s statement is exactly the wrong reaction to the election. It endorses a backward-looking policy that would apply the brakes to the most dynamic sector of America’s economy.

“The shellacking the president and his party suffered last week was largely about the economy. In exit polls, 70 percent of voters said they were mostly concerned about the economy, and an overwhelming majority of them described economic conditions as ‘not so good’ or poor.

“If the election yields any lesson, it is that Democrats need to offer the public a more convincing plan for accelerating economic growth and restoring shared prosperity. Such a plan should begin by building on America’s comparative advantages in digital innovation and entrepreneurship.

“Imposing public utility-style regulation on the Internet points in the opposite direction. It would very likely reduce private investment in broadband, which as PPI has documented in a series of policy reports, is a prime catalyst for job and business creation in the United States.

“It is also inconsistent with the Democratic Party’s legacy. After all, the Internet took off in the 1990s, thanks in significant degree to the ‘light touch’ approach to regulation adopted by the Clinton-Gore Administration.

“We hope President Obama will reflect on that legacy of pro-growth progressivism and reconsider his endorsement of Title II regulation of the Internet.”