A study released by the Institute for Policy Integrity in October describes how a weakening of the principle of network neutrality might impact the Web. Based on an analysis of Internet usage, it finds that Internet infrastructure and content work together to generate huge economic benefits for consumers—possibly as much as $5,686 per user, per year.
Eliminating network neutrality, as some have proposed, may reduce incentives to invest in Internet content and infrastructure.
The NYU study represents a smart new way of looking at an old problem; an economic evaluation that strips away some of the emotion (and demagogeury) that surrounds any discussion of crime and justice. It’s easier to be “tough on crime” when you can pay the price, right? But now we can’t. And the collective poverty within our criminal justice systems isn’t going to ease on its own. So bring in the economists! And let the stale, old law-and-order crowd step aside.
There’s an interesting study out from the NYU School of Law which buttresses the argument that America would save a ton of money down the road, and make life easier for many of its citizens, if lawmakers today were able to muster up the moxie to remodel criminal justice systems. It’s a concept that requires political foresight and a patient public, which means most politicians and their constituents will blindly reject it, but I hope serious people everywhere take a long look at this.
A new report out today from NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity encourages policymakers to apply an economic analysis to criminal justice policy. And such an analysis, the report says, would reach this conclusion: “Public safety can be prioritized and even improved at a lower cost than traditional incarceration, using techniques like behavioral therapy for young offenders, intensive supervision, or a new iteration of a drug court. “
Corporate opponents of Net Neutrality have been arguing that rules protecting an open Internet will stifle innovation and economic growth. But a new study says that is just plain false.
New York University Law School’s nonpartisan Institute for Policy Integrity says the Internet generates huge economic benefits for consumers – as much as $5,600 per user, per year.
Executive director Mike Livermore explains that the infrastructure of the Net – the wires, cables and other hardware – and the content that flows through that hardware – combine
to create value for the user. Livermore says that without Net Neutrality rules to keep the Internet an open, level playing field for everyone who uses it, the value to users could diminish.
A study by the Institute of Policy and Integrity at New York University has crunched some numbers and determined that the combination of network infrastructure and content that comprise the Internet offers significant economic value to consumers. The authors describe their methods below:
“The results suggest that the consumer surplus generated by the Internet is very large. The average survey respondent spent 114.5 minutes a day on the Internet recreationally. The benefits that use generates are equivalent to 5.2 percent to 7.1 percent of income. If we use the median income value of Pew’s survey, we find that individual consumers collect between $4,155 and $5,686 worth of value from the Internet per year. This estimate is big, but it is in the same neighborhood as those found by Goolsbe and Klenow. They found that the consumer benefits of the Internet were somewhere between 2 percent and 3 percent of total income. The amount of time consumers spend on the Internet suggests that they receive a great deal of benefit from access.”
A new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law finds that a weakening of net neutrality rules might actually “reduce incentives to invest in Internet content and infrastructure.”
In sum, the authors determined that Web users “collect between $4,155 and $5,686 worth of value from the Internet per year.” And the report notes an end to net neutrality rules — the FCC’s version of which the authors describe as “imperfect” — could shift investment from content creation into service provision, reducing the value of the Internet to its users.
Anyone who’s shopped for health insurance knows what a headache the process can be. The disorienting maze of features, benefits, and coverage options can leave consumers under-protected even when they’ve overpaid.
The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is trying to create a clearer, better menu for policy holders to order from. Their idea is “Transparency Reporting,” a move aimed at streamlining the health insurance purchasing process by asking companies to summarize their policies in easier-to-understand ways.
According to some, the housing bubble came crashing down in the fall of 2008 partially due to the predatory lending practices of mortgage banks. Part of the problem may have been consumer confusion when it came to the fine print of complex financing arrangements. Unknowingly, homebuyers might have signed on for more than they could manage — a situation that consumer education could have ameliorated.
Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, told BNA March 21 that the CURB Act offers nothing new and would only prolong the rulemaking process.
“Right now, there are very strong analytical requirements that agencies have to go through before they adopt regulations,” Livermore said. “There are rules set up by courts under the Administrative Procedure Act and cost-benefit analysis rules that the president has in place. These requirements are comprehensive. They are designed so that agencies look at all the costs, all the benefits, and so that they only adopt rules that maximize net benefits. So [the CURB Act’s requirements] are redundant requirements that will just create more red tape for agencies. Supposedly this is about reducing red tape.”
Viewing all news in Safety and Consumer Protection
Page 4 of 8