Technology Policy Institute
Delete, Delete, Insert? New Regulatory Contradictions at the FCC
Two recent Federal Communications Commission documents have caught my attention.
Lessons from Telecommunications Regulation for Tech Competition Policy
This paper examines the parallels between historical telecommunications regulation and current proposals for increasing competition in technology markets, focusing on three key market characteristics the sectors share: network effects, economies of scale, and switching costs. Regulators have addressed these issues in telecommunications markets through mandatory interconnection among telephone networks, compulsory asset sharing, and number portability requirements.
Tech Policy Recommendations for the Next Administration
High-speed internet access is crucial for economic opportunity and social participation. However, broadband policies have not kept pace with dramatic changes in technology and markets. The administration should:
Overhauling the Universal Service Fund: Aligning Policy with Economic Reality
Two very real Universal Service Fund (USF) problems need to be addressed: funding and spending. The way the program is funded is inefficient, unsustainable, and regressive. Regardless of the judicial outcome, the tax that the court declared unconstitutional is both inefficient, by taxing a small, price-sensitive, declining base, and regressive, with a higher proportional burden falling on those least able to afford it. The program spends too much money on the wrong things. The High Cost Fund in particular, which accounts for about half of total spending, is outdated and wasteful.
Broadband Prices 2024
Consumers and policymakers always care about broadband prices. The issue is of particular interest to policymakers now that the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) has ended and as states try to figure out what the “affordability” requirements of the BEAD grants mean and how to implement them. Such analysis should begin with an understanding of current prices and how they have changed. This analysis uses three sources to consider the cost of broadband to consumers: the Federal Communications Commission’s Urban Rate Survey (URS), the U.S.
Reform the ACP
On May 2, the Senate will hold a hearing on “The Future of Broadband Affordability.” The Affordability Connectivity Program (ACP) that provides subsidies for more than 20 million low-income households will expire in May. Without the extension, these families will see the cost of the internet service increase by up to $30 per month and prompt some families to drop internet service altogether.
TPI Scholars Argue Classifying Broadband Providers Under Title II is Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful
In these comments we explain why Title II classification is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Specifically, we make the following points:
Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Will Not Increase Competition
On September 26 at the National Press Club, Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel laid out her arguments for reclassification. Among them was a claim that the lack of broadband competition makes Title II necessary. One can make coherent and serious arguments supporting Title II and net neutrality. But Title II because of the state of competition? No. The Chairwoman is right that areas actually served by only one provider and likely to continue to be served by only one provider really do require more oversight than areas with more competition.