Net Neutrality and Investment in the US: A Review of Evidence from the 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order

IF 0.9 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS
George S. Ford
{"title":"Net Neutrality and Investment in the US: A Review of Evidence from the 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order","authors":"George S. Ford","doi":"10.1515/RNE-2018-0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order reversed its 2015 decision to apply common carrier regulation to broadband Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Empirical evidence indicating negative investment effects of the regulation played a key role in this reversal, though the quantification of these investment effects were a matter of substantial controversy. This article surveys the studies cited in the recent decision and the Commission’s scrutiny of them. In all, the Commission considered eight primary works but relied on only two of them, a culling process that relied on four principles: (1) simply comparing outcomes before-and-after an event is not a valid impact analysis; (2) before-and-after comparisons are more probative if regression analysis is used to condition the outcomes by accounting for potentially relevant factors like economic growth, sales, and so forth; (3) the causal effects of a regulation are best determined with reference to a counterfactual; and (4) the application of proper methods does not excuse the use of bad data. These principles are mostly uncontroversial and are consistent with the modern practice of impact analysis.","PeriodicalId":45659,"journal":{"name":"Review of Network Economics","volume":"40 1","pages":"175 - 205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Network Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/RNE-2018-0043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order reversed its 2015 decision to apply common carrier regulation to broadband Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Empirical evidence indicating negative investment effects of the regulation played a key role in this reversal, though the quantification of these investment effects were a matter of substantial controversy. This article surveys the studies cited in the recent decision and the Commission’s scrutiny of them. In all, the Commission considered eight primary works but relied on only two of them, a culling process that relied on four principles: (1) simply comparing outcomes before-and-after an event is not a valid impact analysis; (2) before-and-after comparisons are more probative if regression analysis is used to condition the outcomes by accounting for potentially relevant factors like economic growth, sales, and so forth; (3) the causal effects of a regulation are best determined with reference to a counterfactual; and (4) the application of proper methods does not excuse the use of bad data. These principles are mostly uncontroversial and are consistent with the modern practice of impact analysis.
美国的网络中立性和投资:2018年恢复互联网自由秩序的证据回顾
2018年,联邦通信委员会的《恢复互联网自由令》推翻了其2015年根据《1934年通信法案》第二章将公共运营商监管适用于宽带互联网接入服务的决定。经验证据表明,监管的负面投资效应在这种逆转中发挥了关键作用,尽管这些投资效应的量化存在实质性争议。本文概述了最近的决定中所引用的研究以及委员会对这些研究的审查。委员会总共考虑了八项主要工作,但只依赖其中的两项,这是一个基于四项原则的筛选过程:(1)简单地比较事件前后的结果不是有效的影响分析;(2)考虑到经济增长、销售等潜在的相关因素,采用回归分析来调整结果,前后比较更具证明性;(3)规定的因果关系最好参照反事实来确定;(4)正确方法的应用不能成为使用不良数据的借口。这些原则基本上是没有争议的,并且与现代影响分析的实践是一致的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The Review of Network Economics seeks to help policy makers, academics, and practitioners keep informed of new research and policy debate in network economics and related subjects that are relevant to the study of network industries. By publishing high quality research on topical issues relevant to network industries, it is hoped readers will be able to gain a deeper understanding of the economic issues involved and that this will improve the quality of decision making by private and public organisations, and debate among researchers. The articles can cover specific network industries, or may deal with general issues that have relevance to a number of different network industries, including topics in the economics of networks, regulation, competition law, or industrial organisation. Papers that provide insights into policy debates are especially welcome, as are up-to-date surveys, book reviews, and comments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信