Some may often get a sense of uneasiness when considering the future, especially within the context of employment. People seldom truly know what the future holds. Generally, whenever there is a hint of “new” technology making life easier, there may come a sense of worry that someone may have to lose their job.
However, nothing can be further from the truth, and while our society does continue to progress into a more autonomous state, the opportunity for jobs is still very much alive. In fact, studies have shown that there is quite often a positive effect between technological innovation and employment opportunities.
In Mississippi, several innovations have the potential to grow the economy substantially. In pursuance of scientific advances, Adranos, Inc., a company originating from Alabama, is making a corporate investment as part of its relocation close to the Stennis Space Center. While the initial job count is only in its beginnings, it can only increase as this company continues to settle in and develop their rocket motor technology.
The Ingalls Shipbuilding company, America’s largest military shipbuilding company, also continues to grow the Mississippi economy and provide additional jobs. In fact, they are projected to provide over 3,000 jobs as they are “steadily adding new team members to the growing workforce.” This likely due to an increase in efficiency as the company finds new ways to organizing their business through new technological systems.
Mississippi companies have observed these opportunities and have sought to capitalize upon it. For example, C Spire, a Mississippi-based company, has sought to create opportunities for education and training in areas of STEM seeking to create a technological movement within the state. This includes ensuring that schools have sufficient internet, people have the resources to learn coding, and IoT innovations and telehealth are expanded to provide quality care for pervasive health issues in Mississippi.
The best response to all of these opportunities is to allow them to grow. This can be done by embracing the technological advances that remain evident throughout the state. Government should keep these lanes of innovation open as the people of Mississippi embrace the innovations that will progress the economy into further prosperity.
America is a living proof of the success of capitalism versus the failure of big government. Despite the nation’s solid beginnings and subsequent success, recent efforts in the federal government are attempting to raise taxes, increase spending, and expand the national debt to ourselves and our posterity.
The nation started out as a fledgling colony and went on to become the greatest economic powerhouse in the world. America's foundations in limited government and free enterprise played that critical role for the nation to have the start it needed to rise as the leader of the world economy.
The factors that drove the American colonists to seek independence were numerous, but perhaps the best known is the issue of taxation. As the British Empire attempted to impose taxes on the colonists without representation, this led to a chain of events that eventually culminated in the colonist successful efforts to independence and the founding of the United States of America.
The story of America’s path to success is grounded in the determination and grit of the Founders to create a nation that would be a place of prosperity for themselves and their posterity. The culmination of this vision did not happen through the power plays of big government bureaucrats and heavy taxes to redistribute wealth, but through the power of the free market working to generate capital and success.
The concept of federal taxes imposed directly on American citizens was rarely utilized in America's early years, all the way up until the Civil War. Instead, the federal government collected revenue through tariffs and excise taxes. These relatively limited tax policies were based on the Founders’ understanding that money is used best in the hands of citizens, not the government. In the words of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, “[taxes] should not be so exercised as to impede or discourage the lawful and useful industry and exertions of individuals."
In accordance with the Founder’s principles of limited government and just taxation, annual federal spending of taxpayer dollars in America’s early days only constituted about 3 percent of its total GDP. However, in more recent years, yearly federal spending has run far from the moderation of the early years and now comprises more than 45 percent of the total GDP.
The Washington D.C. mantra of “tax and spend” is out of touch with the roadmap the Founders set forth when they wrote the Constitution. Far from the balance of the Founders, federal leaders are proposing even more taxes, more debt, and more spending, all while promoting the expansion of government programs and handouts.
The preservation of the American republic is dependent on the foundational truths that brought America to greatness. A return to the principles of limited government, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility are critical to safeguarding the prosperity of the nation for many more years to come.
The United States has a highly developed internet infrastructure with incredible successes to its credit. But problematic policy changes being considered in Washington may jeopardize that success. In recent months there have been calls from many to restore net neutrality.
What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is a policy that internet service providers (ISPs) have to give all internet content providers equal access and use of the ISP’s networks, and for no extra cost. Because of this policy, ISPs could not impose any additional charges on a content provider, regardless of how much data the content provider uses in a network.
For instance, a video streaming company might use a large amount of data on an ISP’s system when users accessed the service. Net neutrality would prohibit the ISP from making the video streaming service pay for the extra data that they used. Instead, net neutrality would force the ISP to spread out the data usage costs to the rest of its users.
Net neutrality does not just increase the cost of the internet for the average consumer. Net neutrality also lowers the incentive for ISPs to expand broadband service if there is no competition to host content provider data.
Former FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai removed Obama-era net neutrality rules in 2018. Pai reasoned that net neutrality forced ISPs to charge consumers more to equalize their operating costs across the board. Following the repeal of net neutrality, there was an increase in broadband investment as ISPs moved to make deals with content providers that would prioritize speed and efficiency for those high-usage content providers.
There have been incredible free-market successes in the wake of repealing net neutrality in America. Yet, there are renewed demands from some for the federal government to reinstate net neutrality. Indeed, the Biden administration is considering the reinstatement of net neutrality. While such a move might be popular with certain groups in Washington, state and federal policymakers would do well to consider the negative implications that net neutrality could have on the strength of America’s broadband networks.
The failure of net neutrality in Europe is glaring evidence of how problematic the policy is. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, there were concerns in Europe that the under-built broadband networks could not handle the uptick in internet usage. This network failure is largely due to the European Union’s net neutrality policies that had discouraged investment in broadband development prior to the pandemic.
The inadequate broadband infrastructure led to pleas from European policymakers that content providers limit the data they were pushing through the internet networks. Meanwhile, due to the higher investments in broadband development, the robust broadband infrastructure in the United States responded quite well during the pandemic compared to its European counterparts.
The success of American broadband comes as little surprise to proponents of the free market competition as the driving force in broadband developments and innovations. As it claims to use the free market as the justification for social media content moderation, Big Tech often insists that companies have the right to decide which entities they will host on their services.
But there appears to be a double standard for many of them regarding the net neutrality issue as these companies themselves feel threatened by the ISPs. The Big Tech companies have a huge market share of internet content. In 2019, just six content providers accounted for 43 percent of all internet traffic. The content providers also can control the content on their massive platforms. Yet, these content providers insist that the ability of ISPs to determine the flow of data on their networks poses a threat to the freedom of the internet.
For instance, Twitter stated with dismay that without net neutrality, “ISPs would even be able to block content they don’t like.” Yet, Twitter and other Big Tech companies have given strong support for other policies, like Section 230, that allow social media companies to moderate, block, or remove certain content from their sites.
Despite the protests of some Big Tech companies, a market without net neutrality has the potential for increased innovation and competition. By allowing for the market to determine which ISPs will prosper as they offer the most attractive services to consumers, there is a real potential for the cycle of competition and innovation to continue. While net neutrality treats the internet simply as a means of broadcasting data in an unsystematic way, a free-market perspective views the internet as a dynamic marketplace commodity that continually responds to supply and demand patterns.
Despite the claims that net neutrality keeps the internet open and accessible, the record shows that net neutrality actually threatens the efficiency of the internet as it erodes the incentives to develop and grow internet infrastructure. Bad policies have harmful consequences. A step back to the failure of net neutrality is a step backward from the success of America’s internet infrastructure.
Pre-K expansion has been one of the Left’s priorities for years, with many, such as former president Barrack Obama, being key advocates.
Studies from some organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute, have found such government pre-K expansion programs to have little evidence of a large positive impact when children enter kindergarten. But many have persisted with the idea that the government is the best-equipped party to direct people’s lives at the earliest age possible.
Pre-K expansion is on the horizon in Mississippi as well. On December 10, 2020, the University of Mississippi Center for Excellence in Literacy Instruction and Mississippi Campaign for Grade-Level Reading offered a virtual, statewide viewing of a new documentary called, Starting at Zero.
This documentary focuses on the potential effectiveness of early, state-controlled pre-K programs. In addition, it entertains the question of whether there is a worthwhile return on investment on children participating in Head Start programs as early as possible, even “starting at zero.” This is a film that advocates for state-priorities to be in the lives of children from birth, featuring left-leaning leaders from across the country such as Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam.
Unfortunately, the documentary also includes leaders with conservative reputations. But just because a strong conservative leader supports a policy, it does not always mean that the policy itself is conservative.
In early 2020, the Mississippi Legislature PEER Committee issued a report that found that the state’s pre-K programs had little positive effect on the ultimate learning outcomes of children after pre-K. Despite these findings, former Governor Phil Bryant voiced his support in the documentary for this program of government involvement in children’s lives that starts at the earliest possible age.
Following the documentary showing, Ole Miss held a panel entertaining the merits of the documentary for Mississippi's education policy. On the panel were various state leaders and representatives of this movement to expand government oversight starting at birth: Willa Kammerer, the director of Starting at Zero; Tonya Ware, project director of ReadyNation in Mississippi; Rachel Canter, Executive Director of Mississippi First; Dr. Carey Wright, State Superintendent of Education in Mississippi; Jason Dean, chairman of the Mississippi Board of Education; Nita Thompson, Executive Director of the Mississippi Head Start Association; and Holly Spivey, Head Start Collaboration Director and Education Policy Advisor for Governor Tate Reeves.
The primary focus of the discussion centered around the potential return on investment early childhood programming gives to the economic infrastructure of the State of Mississippi. However, the means of this return appear not to be sufficient through means of private childcare.
Instead, the panelists advocated State-sanctioned and State-funded child programming. This theme is revisited throughout the event as the panelists suggest that it is necessary for the government to partner with families and take an active role in the child-rearing process.
The panel exhibited significant interest in pursuing child education and oversight at even earlier ages. In the December 2020 meeting, Dr. Carey Wright commented that $7.8 million has already been applied to these early learning programs through grants and government funding.
That amount has since more than doubled to $16 million. Wright called for the State to prioritize and give more funding to MDE to use in these programs. She further noted that the goal for the Mississippi Board of Education is to ensure that every child has access to early childhood programming.
Dr. Jason Dean suggested that such programs offer the perfect opportunity for the State to teach young children the “soft skills” needed for acceptable social interaction. He further contended that the State must break down the walls between economic, academic, and social issues and start treating these aspects of child development as really different sides of the same coin. “I think we all agree on the policy. I think we need to come up with the plan, especially a funding plan,” Dean said.
Holly Spivey and Nita Thompson commented about their desired picture for those children from birth to 3 years of age. Thompson mentioned the desire for every element and level of child education to work towards the same goal(this goal was left somewhat ambiguous). She additionally equates this issue not only as an economic matter but as a healthcare matter as well, making sure that there is government-funded healthcare for all children to participate in this education programming and meet government healthcare priorities as well.
Despite Governor Reeves’ conservative stance on most policy issues, Spivey indicated that Reeves has a strong interest in expanding government’s involvement in the lives of children at an earlier age, based on her knowledge as his education policy advisor.
State leaders have exhibited interest and support for these kinds of policies to expand government oversight into the lives of young children, even by mandatory force in some cases. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if traditional values will be overridden by the novel concept of starting pre-K at age zero.
The Ole Miss panel meeting can be viewed at the following link: https://youtu.be/2K1WZ5AgMu8
The Mississippi space industry constitutes a growing role in the state economy with implications across a wide range of areas. The industry brings employment, infrastructure development, and technological innovations that increase the ability of the state and the nation to be internationally competitive in a growing sector.
When understanding the space industry, it is essential to note the private sector shift that has taken place in recent years. Government-funded programs are no longer the sole actor in this enterprise. Instead, private enterprise has entered the picture as a growing contributor to progress in space. It is important not to impede this change in the space industry landscape but to encourage this development as a new and capable form of revenue and job growth.
The state of Mississippi shows great promise in this area. In particular, the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County is projected to be the “home to a modern, sustainable propulsion test enterprise by 2025 [and will provide] world-class test services to NASA, other government agencies, and commercial customers.”
In 2020 alone, it served as a major contributor to the Gulf Coast economies, contributing more than $1 billion to Hancock and Pearl River counties and St. Tammany Parish in Louisiana. Indeed, in 2021 Stennis Space Center conducted the hot fire rocket test for the Artemis I space mission, the first of several missions to space that will eventually culminate with Americans on the moon again.
Inside the center, the E Test Complex provides opportunities for private sector companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Relative Space to test engines and help innovate this industry to unimaginable heights. It has been such a resource for companies in the space industry that companies have expanded the space center dramatically.
Relativity, announced that they would be further expanding the Stennis Space Center through a $2.4 million investment. This is on top of their $59 million investment that has been reported to have created 190 jobs for locals.
On both a state and federal level, there seems to be increased attention on continuing this growth. In 2019, former Governor Phil Bryant started the Space Initiative, which seeks to attract more space companies like Relativity to Mississippi. He also announced the Mississippi National Guard Space Directorate formation, which is supposed to attract U.S. Department of Defense federal investments through President Trump’s Space Force. Both of these initiatives show promise in furthering innovation developments in the Mississippi space industry.
Mississippi would also do well from federal legislation such as Senator Wicker and Senator Hyde-Smith’s bill, the Licensing Innovations and Future Technologies in Space Act. Such legislation would significantly grow the space opportunities in South Mississippi by directing the Department of Transportation to build a facility in which federal employees can receive training on the process of licensing commercial space launch and reentry activities.
As an important free-market development, it is important to continue to allow growth in this area. The space industry is a continually expanding area of the American economy, both in the private and public spheres. The Mississippi government would do well to work for cooperation with the space industry as it brings matters of regulatory reform and economic freedom to the state.
US Senators have blocked the passage of a bill that would have fundamentally overhauled America’s election process.
As I noted in a video a few days ago, the bill, dubbed the “For the People Act,” is anything but for the people. This radical legislation would have dramatically altered how elections are run in our country. Frankly, it boils down to a federal takeover of the election system that we’ve preserved in this nation for the last 200 years.
The bill lost by only one vote, showcasing the intense divide that currently exists in the US Senate.
Here are some of the worst parts of this (now dead) bill:
- It authorizes the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofits when these groups apply for tax-exempt status. This would make room for political targeting via taxation. Imagine the chilling effect on speech that would occur if the IRS was constantly staring down non-profits and threatening punishment if the wrong thing is said or the wrong idea is advanced.
-It would eliminate state voter ID laws that verify the identity of voters and strengthen election security. The vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum continue to support voter ID laws.
-It pushes a one-size fits all redistricting model on every state. The bill would strip voters of their ability to decide how districts are drawn.
-It would force the public to fund candidates running for Congress. Nobody should be forced to fund political campaigns involuntarily.
-It would limit the capacity for states to clean their voter rolls. This bill would have made it even harder to clean up these lists. This makes it more likely that folks who have died, moved away, are ineligible, are noncitizens, or are registered multiple times will be left on voter lists. Why would any official want to make it more difficult for states to have accurate voter lists?
-The bill would have automatically registered any individual who has an interaction with a state agency such as the DMV. To be clear, this does not refer just to eligible citizens. It would have registered every individual no matter if they’re simply a resident or even if they should not be voting. There is absolutely no sensible reason to register those who should not be voting.
-It would require that all states allow for absentee ballots on demand. Furthermore, it allows for ballot harvesting, a process by which campaign officials and other political actors can work to collect absentee ballots. This practice has been widely criticized by folks across the political aisle.
-It would force states to allow for online registration and unaccountable same day registration without oversight.
-Finally, it dramatically restricts the free speech rights of candidates, citizens, and nonprofits by enacting a range of new regulations.
Thankfully, the bill is dead. This is thanks, in part, to the “No” votes of both Senator Roger Wicker and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith.
The bill will undoubtedly be reintroduced again. However, its death strikes a major blow at efforts to centralize election control and remake Mississippi’s election laws in the vein of New York or California’s systems.
"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty." -Winston Churchill
America is at a crossroads regarding its economy and identity. This all comes in the wake of a government that has expanded spending to record levels and a nation that is recovering from government-imposed lockdowns.
As states begin opening back up, the circumstances have created an ideological and economic policy vacuum as various factions clammer to define "the new normal."
Although many would have frowned upon the idea of the government giving out money on such a large scale, the recent events of the past year have further normalized the idea of government handouts to the populace. Despite assertations from many that such programs were only to be utilized during the pandemic, the nature of government has moved these programs closer to a position of permanence.
In the words of Milton Friedman: "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." Indeed, efforts are underway even now to make such handouts the codified law of the land, with many in Washington advocating for an expansion of the welfare state to the extent that the nation has not seen since Lyndon Johnson's disastrous "Great Society."
Yet the question must be asked, what is the real economic benefit of the government handouts that the Left has continually attempted to advance? Although the shortsighted proposals of some promise at least temporary advantages, it is critical to consider whether or not these moves have long-term benefits for the economy. Time and time again, the government has shown itself to be a poor distributor of other people's money.
Handouts stagnate economic growth because there is no exchange of goods or services when the money goes from the taxpayer to the government to the welfare recipient. Under free-market circumstances, economic transactions are voluntary exchanges that occur so that all parties get something of value. When there are more transactions, more economic activity occurs. On the other hand, the government gets the money it uses for the welfare state either by borrowing it on the taxpayers' credit or using force to enact taxation.
For instance, when the government uses one dollar for these entitlement programs, it transfers that dollar from the producer to the recipient by force. This transfer guts the value that could have been put into the economy if the recipient had worked for that dollar. Taking the money that taxpayers earned through their own labor and transferring it to handout recipients that did not work for it disregards the value of the taxpayer's labor.
Yet, the damages from the redistributive entitlement programs do not just end with the disregard of taxpayer labor. Such programs also lower the productivity of the workforce as workers are incentivized not to work. This creates a consuming cycle as the businesses that are dependent upon employees cannot find a labor force to operate the business.
When these places of employment are forced to close their doors because they can't find employees, there are fewer available employment opportunities. Government welfare programs are then further grounded into society to address all of the resulting unemployed. Through a cycle of government dependence and poverty brought about by entitlement programs, communities that were once thriving can be decimated as the whirlpool of government welfare programs consumes the economy.
Finally, government handouts are more than just a problematic economic element. There is perhaps no more destructive force to destroy the motivation and work ethic of a workforce than the sedative of government handouts. When a government doles out the entitlement dollars to the citizens, it sends a message that the nanny state will provide some or all of their income.
The American economy and work ethic are legendary as the world's greatest engine for free enterprise, industry, and innovation. To protect this incredible success, there must be a recognition that destructive consequences come from policy proposals to grow redistributive entitlement programs.
A path of socialist programs is a path to ruin for America. Public policy should prioritize an economic environment where citizens can genuinely experience the value of their own labor and thrive in the success of the free market system.
Regulatory sandboxes are a unique solution to prevent government regulations from smothering new technologies and innovations. The programs allow innovative companies to be temporarily exempt from prohibitive regulations until the state can establish an objectively informed regulatory framework for the innovation.
These programs have been adopted in select states as a unique way to encourage business growth and innovation. Although the programs have come in many forms, policymakers have implemented sandboxes across several different sectors.
In a day of big technology companies, regulatory sandboxes provide a regulatory development platform for all companies so that even small innovators with less political and financial capital can have an established framework to present their new innovations to regulators.
This report highlights innovative legislation and policy ideas that would advance such regulatory reform proposals around the nation:
Financial Technology
The financial technology sector was one of the first sectors to utilize the regulatory sandbox model. This type, known as a “FinTech” regulatory sandbox, has become the most widespread type so far and has seen success across several states.
Financial services are rapidly evolving. These sandboxes provide a regulatory framework for companies to develop innovations that increase access to capital, enable unique financial transaction models, and develop tools to build finance into new technology.
Arizona (2018), Nevada (2019), Utah (2019), Wyoming (2019), Florida (2020), West Virginia (2020)
Bills Introduced:
Illinois (2019), South Carolina (2019), Texas (2019), Connecticut (2021), Louisiana (2021), New York (2021), North Carolina (2021), North Dakota (2021), Oklahoma (2021)
Blockchain
Blockchain is an emerging technology that has quickly been thrust to the forefront of technological development. Using a highly sophisticated record-keeping system, it has applications for a myriad of industries ranging from banking to logistics.
In order to encourage the growth of this technology, the states of Wyoming and Utah both implemented regulatory sandboxes that included blockchain technology. Wyoming and Utah both opted to include blockchain under the umbrella of their FinTech sandboxes.
However, although many proposed bills have placed blockchain under FinTech, other legislation (e.g., Rhode Island) has opted to specify an entirely separate sandbox for blockchain. This specification is based on the understanding that blockchain has more applications than solely the financial sector.
Passed into Law:
Utah (2019), Wyoming (2019), Hawaii (2020)
Bills Introduced:
South Carolina (2019), Idaho (2021), Louisiana (2021), North Carolina (2021), North Dakota (2021), Rhode Island (2021)
Insurance Technology
Insurance is an extraordinarily complex and dynamic industry. Using insurance sandboxes, innovative businesses have the opportunity to provide insurance services that might be outside of the status quo. By having the ability to offer innovative insurance, companies can explore ways that would help them better serve their customers.
Passed into Law:
Kentucky (2019), Vermont (2019), Utah (2020), South Dakota (2021), West Virginia (2021)
Bills Introduced:
New Hampshire (2020), Louisiana (2021), North Carolina (2021)
Legal Services
The state of Utah’s Supreme Court first implemented a legal services sandbox in 2020. Over the last year, the program has seen great success, being utilized by non-profits, non-traditional legal services, and the use of technology for legal services.
According to a recent report, these innovators have provided legal services to hundreds of individuals, and there has not been a single complaint from consumers or entities. In 2020, California also introduced a legal sandbox through its bar association.
Implemented:
Utah (established in 2020 by administrative order of the Utah Supreme Court)
California (established in 2020 by the state bar association)
Agriculture Technology
Agricultural technology has immense potential as a catalyst to grow the industry, increase profitability, and increase efficiency. Self-driving tractors, drone crop analysis, DNA soil sampling, and other innovations will be part of this dynamic transition. In recognition of this, the state of Mississippi was the first state to propose a regulatory sandbox to promote agricultural innovation.
Bills Introduced:
Mississippi (2021)
Digital Medical Technology
Digital medical technologies carry the immense potential to provide health care services by harnessing the power of technologies such as telehealth, mobile apps, artificial intelligence, and wearable devices to deliver higher quality services. The state of Wyoming passed a law implementing the nation’s first and only digital medical technology sandbox.
Passed into Law:
Wyoming (2019)
Energy Technology
Energy technology is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the country. As worldwide energy demand continues to rise, the need to integrate innovative technologies into the energy sector has increased. In recognition of this, Mississippi was the first state to have an energy technology sandbox introduced in the Legislature.
Bills Introduced:
Mississippi (2021)
Property Technology
The innovative applications for technology in the property sector are immense. Some key technologies being used include satellite mapping and surveying, virtual reality, blockchain, and artificial intelligence analysis of market conditions.
In 2019, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill that established a property technology sandbox. This is the only such program in the nation, making Arizona the friendliest state in the nation for property technology innovators.
Passed into Law:
Arizona (2019)
General Sandbox
In order to facilitate innovative technology developments, regardless of industry, some states have looked at the prospect of general regulatory sandboxes. The general sandbox program provides a more comprehensive innovation environment that frees up businesses to explore multiple innovations across different sectors.
In 2021, after the success of its multiple industry-specific sandboxes, Utah was the first state to establish a general sandbox program. This program came after passage of the state’s several industry-specific sandboxes. This has immense economic potential for Utah as innovative start-ups look to open up in Utah. Other state legislatures have introduced general sandboxes.
Passed into Law:
Utah (2021)
Bills Introduced:
Mississippi (2021), Tennessee (2021)
***For Immediate Release***
(Baton Rouge, LA/Jackson, MS): The Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation, a division of the Pelican Institute, and the Mississippi Technology Institute, a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, have released a comprehensive joint report on the status of broadband internet access in Mississippi and Louisiana.
The report can be read in its entirety here.
The state-based technology centers seek to provide information to policymakers and the general public on removing barriers to broadband deployment and being proactive to get the two states more digitally connected.
In a day of telework, remote learning, telemedicine, and increasing digital connectivity, there is a growing need for fast and reliable internet service. As policymakers work to address the questions surrounding broadband coverage, speed, cost, and infrastructure development, the report aims to provide a comprehensive point of reference.
Eric Peterson, Director of the Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation, noted: "In order to close the digital divide, lawmakers must be armed with the information necessary to overcome the challenges of broadband implementation. Lawmakers need to be informed on what areas lack access and what issues cause lower adoption rates. By understanding the causes of problems in broadband deployment, lawmakers will be able to make great strides in closing the digital divide."
The report emphasizes data-driven public policy as a driving force behind successful broadband deployment. Matthew Nicaud, Tech Policy Specialist for the Mississippi Technology Institute, noted: “Broadband deployment has extensive implications on the state infrastructure, economy, budget, education, tech innovation, and business growth. By providing data about the current status of broadband deployment, we hope to provide policy recommendations that are fiscally responsible and economically successful.”
The report was produced as a joint initiative by the technology divisions of the Pelican Institute and the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
For more information on the report or to request an interview, please reach out to Hunter Estes, [email protected], at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy or Ryan Roberts, [email protected] at the Pelican Institute.
***End***