issue: Regulatory Reform

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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.

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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.”

How Democrats Can Recover

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Electoral defeats are painful, but clarifying. As Democrats survey the damage left by a larger-than-expected Republican wave, it’s possible to discern four signposts on the road to a progressive recovery.

First, the party needs to start working on a post-Obama agenda.

Anti-Obama sentiment engulfed Democratic candidates everywhere, dragging red-state senators underwater and nearly drowning seemingly safe incumbents in purple or blue states, like Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. The main “issue” in all these campaigns was the Democratic candidates’ supposed fidelity to Barack Obama. Only in this sense did Republicans succeed in nationalizing the midterm, but it was enough.

In his press conference Wednesday, a rather clueless President Obama took no responsibility for the wipeout and conveyed no urgency about making course corrections. This suggests that while Obama will be the main bulwark against GOP hubris and extremism over the next two years, Democrats will have to look elsewhere for the new ideas and arguments they need to regain the political initiative and rebuild support for progressive goals.

Second, those ideas won’t come from the party’s current congressional leadership, either.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are able legislative tacticians, tough partisan warriors, and world-class fundraisers. The charge now being leveled against them by some on the left—that they haven’t been aggressive enough in confronting Republicans—is ludicrous.

But agile tactics and fighting spirit aren’t enough, especially if voters think they are mainly in the service of expanding benefits for favored party constituencies. What Democrats need is a larger vision for restoring shared prosperity that can unite the interests of core partisans with those of moderate and independent voters. The current leadership has discouraged creative thinking by party pragmatists about ways to speed up economic growth, improve the regulatory environment for innovation, or make government work better. Instead, they’ve enforced conformity to focus-grouped “messages” tailored narrowly to different slices of the electorate.

Yes, I know that raising the minimum wage is popular. But it didn’t lift Democrats last Tuesday, and neither did alarmist rhetoric about a “war on women.” Next time around, Democrats will need to offer voters something more inspiring than a tired pastiche of messages aimed at bribing or scaring voters. It’s time to replace the current team with a younger crop of rising leaders open to bigger, bolder ideas for tackling America’s big problems.

Continue reading at The Daily Beast.

 

 

RealClearEducation: Cut College Costs: Make 3-Year Degrees the Norm

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In an op-ed for RealClearEducation, PPI Senior Fellow Paul Weinstein argues that three-year college degree programs can slash the cost of gaining an undergraduate degree by 25 percent, unlike most higher-education reform ideas that simply expand financial aid and allow colleges to continue to raise prices at will.

“As I recently wrote in a report for the Progressive Policy Institute, the Three-Year Degree policy would require any college or university that has students who receive federal aid to make earning a bachelor’s degree in three years the norm. If combined with a proposal to simplify and streamline the alphabet soup of federal grant programs and tax incentives into a single grant (Simplified Higher Education Grant) worth $3,820, these two reforms could cut the financial burden for graduates by over $20,000 at public institutions (in-state) and by as much as $41,000 at private schools, with no new federal spending.”

Read the entire op-ed on RealClearEducation.

Press Release: PPI Releases Policy Memo Revealing FDA Regulations Struggling to Keep Up With the Digital Age

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON—The amount of regulation on the pharmaceutical industry has increased 40 percent since 2000, according to a policy memo released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Moreover, some new draft regulations proposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this year fail to embrace data-driven innovation.

In FDA Regulation in the Data-Driven Economy, PPI Economist Diana Carew details new regulations proposed by the FDA designed for a slower, information-poor age. The memo concludes with policy recommendations for how the FDA can improve outcomes while still protecting consumers in a data-driven economy.

“In a data-driven economy, regulators should encourage greater information sharing, instead of pre-emptively regulating information in a way that controls and ultimately restricts it,” Carew writes. “Regulators should take the role of watchful guardians over data and information flows, taking action when there is evidence of harm or injury.”

“We hope that regulators within the FDA and across other regulatory agencies will be able to use this example as a guide for approaching future regulatory questions surrounding data. Embracing the data-driven economy is the best way to promote future prosperity and well-being for all Americans.”

The memo focuses on one draft FDA guidance in particular, issued in February 2014, entitled “Guidance 
for Industry: Distributing Scientific and
 Medical Publications on Unapproved New Uses— Recommended Practices,” which lays out a lengthy list of rules and restrictions for how drug and medical device manufacturers are allowed to communicate with healthcare professionals and “healthcare entities,” such as hospitals, on unapproved new uses. It discusses the draft guidance and explains why it is not adequate for the digital age. Finally, recommendations for the draft guidance are provided, and the memo concludes with an expansion of the discussion to how this case study can serve as an example for regulators struggling with rulemaking in this time of unprecedented economic transformation.

PPI has undertaken extensive research on regulation in the 21st century, aimed at guiding regulators and policymakers through this transition. Our work strives to strike the right balance between protecting consumers and encouraging innovation in an interconnected world.

Download FDA Regulation in the Data-Driven Economy

FDA Regulation in the Data-Driven Economy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The shift to data-driven growth is one of the most important forces behind the strong performance of the U.S. economy in recent years. Online sales are up by 16% over the past year, and Americans are getting more and more of their information online. Indeed, data-related products and services account for roughly 30% of real personal consumption growth since 2007, second only to the 40% coming from the growth of healthcare-related goods and services.

Yet regulators are struggling to keep up with the digital age. The accumulation of regulations designed for a slower, information-poor age fail to take advantage of new opportunities to improve outcomes while still protecting consumers. The issue of how to regulate in the data-driven economy has been widely discussed, including in several policy papers by the Progressive Policy Institute. For example, our proposal for a Regulatory Improvement Commission, designed to relieve the build-up of outdated and duplicative regulations over time, has been written into legislation and introduced in both the House and Senate.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in particular, is facing a variety of regulatory issues which involve the intersection between the data-driven economy and the more traditional world of health-related regulations. For example, the FDA took a carefully balanced approach in its rule making on mobile medical applications, choosing to exercise enforcement discretion, instead of regulating apps that do not track medical information, such as counting calories.

Download “2014.10-Carew_FDA-Regulation-in-the-Data-Driven-Economy“

Is the CFPB Committing Regulatory Overreach?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is touted as one of the crowning achievements of the Dodd-Frank Act. But a new CFPB report on student loans is highly flawed, raising doubts about its regulatory reach over the private student-loan market.

The CFPB was created to bring all consumer financial products under one regulatory umbrella. It oversees everything in the financial sector that affects consumers — from credit cards, to mortgages, to auto and student loans. In its short history, the agency has responded so quickly and forcefully to allegations of consumer harm that few have questioned its expanding authority or overlapping jurisdiction with other federal regulators.

Last week, the CFPB issued its third annual report on student loan complaints. The agency first created a platform for student loan complaints in 2012, and embarked on a massive solicitation for general comment on private student loans in 2013. Shortly after, CFPB brought private non-bank loan servicers under its oversight authority.

At first glance, the report paints a picture of student borrowers victimized by unscrupulous private lenders and loan servicers. Complaints regarding loans and loan servicers are up 38 percent year over year, with many complaints indicating private lenders and servicers “provided no options [to modify repayment plans], leading the borrower to default.” Complaints against student loan giant Navient (formerly Sallie Mae) were up a staggering 48 percent, with the entire rise dubiously occurring in the month of December. An unwary reader could easily conclude that the private student-loan market is the heart of the student debt crisis, squeezing hardworking young college graduates of every dollar.

But a closer look reveals the report is fundamentally flawed. Although such a database is valuable for identifying concerns and promoting accountability, it should never be used as stand-alone justification for new regulation or policy. Yet that is exactly what this report does — it is basing policy recommendations simply on a compilation of unsubstantiated complaints.

Worse, the report is misleading in two big ways. First, the report makes the private student-loan market seem entirely to blame for the growing student debt crisis. And second, it offers no analytical evidence that private student lenders are unwilling to work with struggling borrowers.

Continue reading at The Hill.

Exporting U.S. Natural Gas: The Benefits Outweigh the Risk

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In a remarkably brief period, America has become awash in oil and natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) we have surpassed Russia as the world’s leading energy superpower, producing more oil and natural gas combined than any other country. This newfound abundance has turned old assumptions about U.S. energy scarcity and security on their head. For the first time since the energy crisis of the 1970s, there is mounting pressure—both domestically and abroad—for the United States to once again become a major energy exporter.

According to the EIA, America’s proved reserves of natural gas have increased in each of the last 15 years to a total of 308.4 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2013, up 84% from 1999 estimates. The agency also estimates that unproved natural gas resources were at an increased level of 1,903.7 Tcf in 2009. These U.S. government estimates are in line with other assessments reported by several respected sources.

Most of these reserves are unconventional resources like coal bed methane, tight gas, and shale that have become more accessible due to significant advances in gas extraction technologies. As a result, the oil and gas industry, including expanding gas and oil production, have accounted for more than 9 million full- and part-time American jobs over the past few years.

The energy revolution also shows up in the results of the Progressive Policy Institute’s recently released 2014 U.S. Investment Heroes, an annual survey of the top 25 U.S. companies that invest most in the United States. On that list are 10 energy companies, involved in the exploration and production of oil and gas or energy distribution and power, that invested a total of $57 billion in 2013, representing 37% of the top 25 investment.

Download “2014.10-Freeman_Exporting-Natural-Gas“

PPI’s Hal Singer Joins FCC Open Internet Roundtable; Argues For Case-by-Case Adjudication

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON—Progressive Policy Institute Senior Fellow and Economist Hal Singer today served as a panelist for an Open Internet roundtable discussion hosted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The roundtable, titled “Economics of Broadband: Market Successes and Market Failures,” first considered incentives to provide high quality open Internet access service and the relevance of market power. It then turned to policies to address market power, consumer protection, and shared benefits of the Internet.

Singer has long called for the FCC to eschew the heavy-handed approach of Title II regulation, and lean instead on its Section 706 authority to regulate potential abuses by ISPs on a case-by-case basis. Investment across both edge and content providers, he argues, will be greater compared to Title II, and the FCC can avoid any unintended consequences, such as creeping regulation, that encompasses content providers or other ISP services. Even an imperfect case-by-case approach to Internet discrimination is better and less costly than blanket prohibition, according to Singer.

“I would like to make five simple points in favor of a case-by-case approach to adjudicating discrimination complaints on the Internet,” Singer said in his remarks. “First, economists and engineers who have studied the issue of priority service unanimously believe that a market for priority could be a good thing for all parties to the transaction, including broadband customers. Second, not only do all parties to the priority transaction benefit, no third party is worse off with priority.

“Third, the leading proponent of strong net neutrality acknowledged in last week’s FCC Roundtable that priority could be a good thing so long as it is user-directed and users pick up the tab. Fourth, even if the FCC wanted to ban priority outright, there is no guarantee that Title II is up for the task. Fifth, the critiques of case-by-case should not persuade the Commission to embrace a blanket prohibition on priority.”

Download Singer’s prepared remarks.

# # #

Multichannel News: Singer Makes Case For Case-By Case Approach to Discrimination

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Multichannel News discusses PPI Senior Fellow Hal Singer’s stance on the FCC’s upcoming Network Neutrality forum:

“Singer, who points out that he has worked with independent cable nets on a number of discrimination complaints before the FCC, plans to say that economists and engineers who have looked at the issue believe paid priority could (emphasis Singer’s) be a good thing  for all concerned, including consumers. He says they could be used for “bad” as well as good, like anticompetitive favoring of an ISP’s own content. But that, for instance, the packets associated with telemedicine demand better treatment than those carrying a cat video. That is why all priority deals should not be banned.”

Read the entire story at Multichannel News.

Surprising New Data on Young College Graduates

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Despite falling unemployment and a recovering labor market, young college graduates continue to struggle in today’s economy.

Analysis of new data reveals the real wages of young college graduates surprisingly fell in 2013, by 1.3 percent. The decline reverses a slight uptick in 2012, and continues along a ten-year trend in which real average earnings for young college graduates has fallen by a sizeable 12 percent since 2003. The chart below shows real average annual earnings for college graduates aged 25-34 working full-time with a Bachelor’s degree only.

realearningsfallchart

This troubling trend presents significant political and economic challenges that policymakers can no longer afford to ignore. As consumers and taxpayers in their prime earning years, young college graduates represent one of the most important segments of the working population.

Politically, the continued struggle of well-educated Millennials sends a clear warning to progressives to support a more convincing growth agenda. A pro-growth agenda must be based on investment and innovation, instead of redistribution and more of the same debt-driven consumption of the last decade. Otherwise, young Americans, the vast majority of which voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 and 2012, may change parties or stay home on Election Day.

Economically, falling real wages for young college graduates is resulting from what I call The Great Squeeze. That is, more young college graduates are finding themselves underemployed – taking lower skill jobs for less pay at the expense of their less educated peers. The continuation of this trend, five years after the Great Recession, suggests this problem is more than just temporary. (While this is for BA only, the trend is the same for those with a BA or higher.)

The Great Squeeze is rooted in demand-side and supply-side factors. On the demand-side, the high underemployment plaguing young college graduates is connected back to the slow-growth economy. Our education, tax, and regulatory policies have failed to adapt to the realities of a data-driven world, keeping investment and high-wage job creation on the sidelines. Here simply having a college degree is not enough to guarantee success. In fact, a recent study from the Federal Reserve found that one-quarter of college graduates earned the same amount as those with a high school diploma or GED.

And on the supply-side, colleges are failing to adequately prepare college graduates for the high-skill, high-wage jobs that are being created in fields like data analytics and tech. For example, although far more women were awarded degrees in 2013 than men, most majored in business, health-related disciplines, education, and psychology.* It is hardly surprising that more data and tech employers are turning to alternative training models to meet their workforce needs. Yet in spite of the mismatch, if anything, our federal student aid system is exacerbating the imbalance.

In short, there are two main takeaways here for policymakers: (1) we need better policies in place to encourage employers to invest and create jobs domestically, and (2) young Americans need a postsecondary education system that is better aligned with the shifting nature of the labor force.

*Author’s tabulation of 2013 IPEDS data.

How private investment is saving America’s infrastructure

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On August 3, 2014, the first cars drove the new and much-needed Port of Miami Tunnel. The project broke ground in 2010 and was intended to ease congestion in downtown Miami.

What set this project apart from others is the way it was financed – through a so-called “public-private partnership” (P3) –  in which a consortium of private investors provide financing for projects and are repaid by a state or local government over time.

Traditionally, infrastructure projects have been largely funded by the federal government through grants to states, which in turn pass funding on to localities. Until recently, P3s have largely stayed in the background, accounting for just a small fraction of total infrastructure financing.

But projects like the Port of Miami Tunnel are likely to be more commonplace as cash-strapped governments look for other resources to replace crumbling infrastructure.

Continue reading at Republic 3.0.

WJLA Channel 7: Websites protest FCC ‘fast lanes’ with Internet Slowdown Day

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Senior Fellow Hal Singer was quoted in a story by WJLA Channel 7 regarding yesterday’s Internet Slowdown Day, a protest organized by net neutrality advocates unhappy with new Open Internet rules being proposed by the Federal Communications Commission:

Hal Singer, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, supports the FCC proposal. He says, “Fast lanes is a loaded term. What I prefer to say is ‘just say no to slow lanes.’”

He continued, “It’s a political campaign. These guys on the other side are very effective at this game. They would like all of these priority delivery offerings to be available for free. Well, that’s very convenient for them. I say, on the other hand, if you don’t want the priority delivery offering, it’s a free country. You can always decline it.”

Singer says – for the average small business or Internet start-up – there’s no demand for such high-speeds. Meanwhile, major telecom firms point out video traffic consumes enormous bandwidth and costs more. And they warn that treating broadband like a utility would harm innovation.

“We’re going to freeze the current technology in place,” Singer said. “And that’s not good for anyone, particularly Internet consumers, because we’re going to keep coming up with new fancy applications that we want and who knows what kind of speeds are required to support those applications.”

Read more on WJLA Channel 7.