Just as technology has expanded access to – well, everything – technological innovation is a key to expanding healthcare access. One of the nation’s top experts in this area is Dr. Robert Graboyes, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center.
In this article, I’ll give a brief summary of a fascinating interview with Dr. Graboyes, which highlights the changing nature of health tech. Dr. Graboyes discusses the ways that technology can be used to increase the quality of healthcare while simultaneously reducing costs.
The discussion covers technological innovations such as portable electrocardiogram (EKG) machines, telehealth, and medical drones. Dr. Graboyes also mentions the importance of conducting a risk-benefit analysis when evaluating innovative medical technology.
The portable EKG example Dr. Graboyes mentions regards a portable EKG machine that he has personally used. The machine has helped him determine if he needed to go to the emergency room due to a personal condition. The information that the portable EKG provides him has saved him tens of thousands of dollars by helping him avoid potential emergency room visits.
Dr. Graboyes also highlights the merits of telehealth through a story about how the technology impacted his own family. A physician was conducting a video conversation with Graboyes’ grandmother and determined that she had to go to the emergency room immediately because she was in the early stages of septic shock. Graboyes noted that the biggest barrier to more expansive implementation of telehealth practices that could help more patients is licensure restrictions. Since this interview was conducted in 2019, many states, including Mississippi, have relaxed their licensure restrictions as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Graboyes further discusses a story involving the use of medical drones to carry blood samples and blood supplies in Rwanda. He stated that the United States is researching the concept in North Carolina, and that its potential benefits are extraordinary.
Finally, he concludes the interview by seeking to quell the fears that many regulators have about embracing new technological innovations. It is important to measure the risks and benefits of each program. He recognizes that many people feel that we need to be more cautious about utilizing medical technology, but compared the technological advances in the medical industry to those in the information technology industry.
Graboyes notes that the IT industry has exploded in terms of advancements, but the healthcare industry has only made marginal advances by comparison. He believes that the reason for this is because of the regulations hampering medical technology growth.
There are risks that come with innovation in any industry, but if the benefits outweigh those perceived risks, then the pursuit is worthwhile. Graboyes compares the current healthcare industry to a fortress, focused on protecting the various professionals and industries dedicated to the current healthcare apparatus. He encourages innovation through a frontier model as an alternative to the fortress strategy. This model would encourage growth with less regulation, but with the potential for greater risk. However, as stated before, if the benefits outweigh the risks, it is worth pursuing the technology.
All in all, Robert Graboyes makes a compelling case for embracing new and innovative medical technologies that will potentially lead to higher quality care, and that will also reduce costs and reduce the frequency of hospitalizations. Instead of hindering these innovations, Mississippi should cut red tape to encourage the adaption of revolutionary medical technologies.
The 2020 Census results have arrived, and the facts are in. Mississippi was one of only three states (alongside Illinois and West Virginia) to lose population in the last ten years.
While we may not have lost a seat in the House of Representatives, we did not grow. When one looks around the country at the states that are prospering and expanding, it becomes quite clear that there is a plethora of natural economic growth driving their success.
In these states, new businesses are not just brought in on the back of taxpayer funded grants and subsidies. They are instead attracted to the strength of the workforce that is present, the friendly tax and regulatory environments, and the hubs of opportunity.
Patrick Gleason, the Vice President of State Affairs at Americans for Tax Reform noted that, “[t]he average top personal income tax rate for states losing seats in Congress is 6.5%, which is 46% greater than the average top income tax rate for states gaining seats (4.45%).”
The states that gained the largest share of the population, and with this, more congressional seats, have some of the best tax structures in the country. Florida has no income tax. Texas has no income tax. Montana has no sales or local taxes and low property taxes. Colorado has a taxpayer bill of rights that makes it very difficult to impose additional tax burdens on state residents.
Much of our population loss is driven by millennials departing the state. It has been reported that Mississippi is losing this generation of residents faster than any state in the country. The departure of our younger population is especially terrible as it reflects not only lost citizens, but a lost investment, as much of this population attended public schools and then colleges in Mississippi, only to take themselves elsewhere.
We will not be able to grow as a state, until we overcome the hurdle that we have in incentivizing folks to stay. After all, if many young people are trying to leave, why would new people be inclined to move in? This collective “brain drain” has left Mississippi less competitive in the long run.
I personally chose to move back to Mississippi. Many of my friends have at some point chose to come here, to stay here, or to return here. Mississippi is a warm, hospitable place with a unique culture, but if there is not a job here for you, then one is forced to move elsewhere.
We should be radical when it comes to ambitiously crafting an environment that fosters economic growth. Mississippi should be the easiest place in the country to start, maintain, and grow a business.
As the 2020 Census shows, we have little to lose. Now is the time to take courageous efforts to outpace others by making it easier to work, live, and thrive in our wonderful state. Only if we commit ourselves to establishing a foundation ripe for economic growth will the 2030 Census bring brighter news.
The genius of our country’s founding document, the Constitution, is that it limited the power of government and empowered individuals to lead their lives as they saw fit, which in turn allowed America to become the freest and most prosperous country in the world.
The framers carefully constructed a government that had just enough power to impose civil order, protect citizens from foreign invaders and secure individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not enough power to violate those rights itself. To achieve this, they confined the powers of the federal government to those specifically listed in the Constitution and divided that power among three branches of government.
But this system only works if we have an independent judiciary. The framers envisioned the judiciary as the guardians of individual rights, willing and able to strike down laws passed by the political branches of government if they violated the Constitution. That role is inherently anti-majoritarian.
Any law that is passed by a majority of our elected representatives, and signed into law by a popularly elected president, is presumably popular among some broad swath of Americans. But being popular does not make a proposed government action just, or constitutional. Our rights are too important to be infringed simply because a majority is willing or even eager to do so.
It is simply unrealistic to expect judges to strike down popular but unconstitutional laws if they expect political retribution for doing so. That is why the Constitution invested the federal judiciary with lifetime tenure, to insulate it from political pressure and allow it to act as a guardian of our freedoms and a constraint on government excesses.
But political pressure can be brought to bear to undermine our independent judiciary in other ways. If judges fear that unpopular but constitutionally correct rulings will lead to court-packing, they will be just as unwilling to act as a bulwark against government overreach. Why would they? Pushing too far today could erode their ability to do so tomorrow.
Even worse, court-packing would turn our independent judiciary into just another political branch of government. If one party packs the court, the other party will do the same as soon as it regains power. The cycle would continue indefinitely, and lead to judges being put on the court for their loyalty to a party and supposed willingness to “balance the court” rather than their loyalty to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Once we lose our independent judiciary, the rest of our Republic will follow with it.
Some fear that the courts have already become partisan tools for the political branches. We all disagree with some court decisions. But overall, the courts have protected our Constitution and the individual rights it protects. This has been a precious gift to our young nation that we must preserve for future generations. To throw it away for short term political gain would be madness.
Of all the challenges associated with starting a business and launching a bright idea, perhaps there is no greater obstacle than gathering capital. But the power of the internet has revolutionized the way that individuals start and invest in businesses. The new funding methods are vast, with numerous new financial options available.
In the beauty of the free market, start-ups provide a catalyst for innovation, economic growth, and job creation. But with the often-high costs of starting a business, there is little debate that start-ups need capital. No matter how much potential a business idea might have, it must have capital investment to succeed. It would be a vast understatement to say that new businesses need as many options on the table as possible as they work to pursue their goals, and their options can sometimes be quite limited.
However, in the age of the internet and the smartphone, more and more funding options are opening up for start-ups. One innovative way to generate business capital through the internet that has emerged in recent years is an investment model known as “crowdfunding.”
Although crowdfunding has multiple forms, a particularly promising form is known as “equity crowdfunding.” Equity crowdfunding raises capital through a campaign that markets a company's potential and offers prospective investors equity in the company. When someone contributes to the crowdfunding campaign, they receive a percentage of the company's profits.
Since most of the investments are small and spread out across dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of investors, it allows new businesses to market their company's potential to the general public and garner more funding. Usually, online platforms market these campaigns, and many have been highly successful. The campaigns provide a funding mechanism for innovators to focus on developing new innovations that are well-funded and receive feedback from investors as they innovate.
For instance, Oculus, a virtual reality headset start-up, started in 2012 with a crowdfunding campaign goal of $250,000. The campaign ended up raising almost ten times the original goal, reaching $2.4 million. Just two years later, Facebook purchased the company for $2.3 billion.
Another campaign led to the launching of SkyBell, one of the first of the “smart doorbell” developers that raised its first several hundred thousand dollars in funding through crowdfunding. The examples are numerous. In fact, crowdfunding has been estimated to generate more than $17 billion a year, with projections for the amount to grow even higher in the coming years. Who knows when the next billion-dollar company will get its start from crowdfunding?
In a day in which the government heavily regulates so much of the financial sector, policymakers should review the potential reforms that could be made to increase the feasibility of crowdfunding as an innovative business funding model.
Although much headway has been made on the federal level with crowdfunding policy, there is a need to reform many of the outdated and ineffective crowdfunding policies in many states. Such reforms would increase the potential for state-based crowdfunding successes as well. By reforming regulations on crowdfunding, states can increase opportunity and encourage innovation by expanding the funding options available to start-ups and small businesses.
The beauty of the American experiment is the potential for each state to bring new ideas to the table to increase prosperity and expand opportunity. State crowdfunding policy reforms for the 21st century could be a way to do just that.
Matthew Nicaud is the Tech Policy Specialist for the Mississippi Technology Institute, a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
“People overestimate what they can accomplish in one legislative session and underestimate what they can accomplish in ten.”
In this series, we are conducting a review of what Mississippi lawmakers have accomplished over the last 10 years. The list provided here is not comprehensive, and we feature only the policies we like, some of which were initiated by MCPP (marked by an *asterisk* below).
Over the past 10 years, Mississippi has gone from the middle-of-the-pack on gun rights to near the top. Below is a review of just some of the Second Amendment protections passed by the Legislature.
Before we get to the gun bills, however, worth mentioning is an important law MCPP worked on (typically, we have left the Second Amendment fights to other groups).
In 2016, Mississippi lawmakers had a great deal of discussion about eliminating the problematic practice of civil asset forfeiture. Rep. Chris Brown succeeded in passing a transparency law (HB 1410) to better track such forfeitures and institute some accountability.*
In 2019, an effort led by MCPP’s Mississippi Justice Institute defeated an attempt to revive the practice of administrative forfeiture.*
Second Amendment Protections
In 2011, the Legislature (HB 506) allowed gun owners who had completed special training to carry their weapon in a courthouse (NOT the same as a courtroom).
In 2013, HB 2, sponsored by Rep. Andy Gipson, confirmed the right to open carry, clarifying that a visibly holstered gun is not a concealed weapon.
That same year, HB 485, sponsored by Rep. Mark Baker, protected concealed-carry permit holders from having their names released via a public records request.
In 2014, the Legislature passed HB 314, sponsored by Rep. Gipson. This law creates a complaint procedure that allows citizens to challenge policies and ordinances that restrict gun ownership.
In 2014, the Legislature also created a Second Amendment Tax Free Weekend with SB 2425.
In 2015, SB 2619 recognized military and law enforcement training as meeting state enhanced concealed carry requirements.
Also in 2015, the Legislature passed SB 2394, which waived concealed carry licensing requirements “for a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver carried in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case.”
In 2016, Rep. Andy Gipson sponsored the Mississippi Church Protection Act (HB 786), which provides legislative guidance for churches wishing to set up a security team for the protection of their congregation.
Finally, 2016 saw the passage of “constitutional carry,” contained in HB 786. Constitutional carry stipulates that people may carry a gun, whether concealed or not, without a government-issued license. Mississippi was the 9th state to pass this protection.
Also embedded in HB 786 is a codification of the well-established “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.” Thanks to now Agricultural Commissioner Andy Gipson, Mississippi law states: “No federal executive order, agency order, law not enrolled by the United States Congress and signed by the President of the United States, rule, regulation or administrative interpretation of a law or statute issued, enacted or promulgated after July 1, 2016, that violates the United States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 shall be enforced or ordered to be enforced by any official, agent or employee of this state or a political subdivision thereof.”*
You may have never had your eyebrows threaded, or your eyelashes extended, or makeup applied to your face. So why should you care that Governor Reeves signed legislation a few weeks ago that allows people to provide those services without being licensed?
Licensure laws may not seem like a pressing issue, but overregulation of the service industry is causing real harm in our state.
Excessive licensing laws have cost the state an estimated 13,000 jobs. That means we could add almost three times as many workers as the Nissan plant employs simply by eliminating unnecessary laws, and it wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime.
The costs of excessive licensing fall disproportionately on the poor, minorities, and young people looking to get their start in life.
Unfortunately, eliminating unnecessary licenses is easier said than done. These exemptions were carved out only after brave business owners sued or threatened to sue the state for their right to work.
One of those lawsuits was filed by Dipa Bhattarai, an international student. She has been threading – removing stray hair by using a twisted cotton thread – for most of her life. It is a safe and common technique that originated in South Asian countries like her home country of Nepal.
Dipa saw an opportunity to pursue her version of the American Dream, and opened Deeva Brows and Beauty, a threading studio with locations in Columbus and Starkville.
Then the cosmetology board – our state’s eyebrow police – forced her to shut down. You see, she had not paid thousands of dollars to take 600 hours’ worth of classes to get a license. The kicker? The required classes don’t even teach anything about eyebrow threading.
Dipa partnered with the Mississippi Justice Institute (“MJI”), a nonprofit, constitutional litigation center that I work for, to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Ultimately, the state decided to back down and repeal the law rather than keep defending it in court.
But the cosmetology board continued trying to shut down other niche beauty businesses. This time, they sent the eyelash police after Amy Burks, who owns Lavish, an eyelash extension lounge in Madison.
Eyelash extensions are available for purchase in self-adhesive strips at most retail outlets. However, in recent years many customers have started paying lash technicians to apply individual false eyelashes, which results in a more natural look. This is a time-consuming and tedious process, but it is safe and easy to learn.
Mississippi law does not specifically require a license for lash technicians, but that did not stop the cosmetology board from interpreting the law to allow them to demand a license anyway.
Again, there is a kicker. If you guessed that the required classes don’t even teach anything about eyelash extensions, you are catching on.
After seven years of safely and openly running her business, Amy was issued a citation for operating an unlicensed salon.
Amy also teamed up with MJI, which sent a letter to the board threatening to file another lawsuit. The state again decided it would rather amend the law than face litigation.
It took yet another lawsuit to clear the way for Mississippians to apply makeup without a license, even though hundreds of millions of people apply makeup every day without formal training.
After years of honing her skills, Karrece Stewart started Get Glam Beauty, a makeup business in Fulton. She teaches makeup techniques and wants to be able to apply makeup for clients as well. But that would require a license.
Makeup is a very small component of the required training, which is primarily focused on skincare and hair removal. And given that applying makeup is not dangerous, this coursework is not needed to prevent any real harms.
Karrece filed her own lawsuit, this time retaining a private law firm that was willing to help her for free. And the pattern continued. Rather than defend the indefensible, the state decided to change the law.
This year’s exemptions are not the first time Mississippi has had to amend its cosmetology laws in response to litigation. In 2005, the state delicensed African-style hair braiding after Tupelo resident Melony Armstrong filed a lawsuit.
It’s encouraging to see the little guy – or in these cases, the little gal – fight back and win. But these small changes required litigation and front page news stories. Most victims of government overregulation suffer in silence. Mississippi’s elected leaders should continue to seek ways to eliminate excessive licensing laws that keep the American Dream out of reach for so many.
This opinion piece by Aaron Rice, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, originally appeared in the Clarion Ledger.
“People overestimate what they can accomplish in one legislative session and underestimate what they can accomplish in ten.”
In this series, we are conducting a review of what Mississippi lawmakers have accomplished over the last 10 years. Again, the list provided here is not comprehensive, and we feature only the policies we like, some of which were initiated by MCPP (marked by an *asterisk* below).
Mississippi is one of the most pro-life states in America; although, it is not THE most pro-life state. Louisiana held that distinction until Arkansas recently passed a flurry of pro-life laws in 2020. Still, policymakers in Mississippi have steadily advanced the right to life, enacting balanced measures aimed at protecting the right to life and protecting maternal health.
Here are some of the highlights:
Twenty-week abortion ban: This law (HB 1400), sponsored by Rep. Andy Gipson in 2014, prohibits abortions performed after the baby is 20-weeks old. The law has not been challenged in court.
Dismemberment ban: This law (HB 519) bans second trimester abortions that entail the dismemberment and removal of the dead baby (also known as a D&E abortion). Mississippi was the fourth state in the country to pass this law. It was sponsored by Rep. Sam Mims in 2016. The law has not been challenged in court.
15-week abortion ban: This law (HB 1510), sponsored by Rep. Becky Currie and championed by Senator Joey Fillingane in 2018, prohibits abortions performed after the baby is 15-weeks old. The law has been blocked by a federal court and is under review at the U.S. Supreme Court.*
Heartbeat ban: This law (SB 2116), sponsored by Sen. Angela Hill in 2019, prohibits abortion after the baby’s heartbeat is detected: generally, at about 6 weeks. The law has been blocked by a federal court.
Life Equality Act: This law (HB 1295) prohibits abortions performed with discriminatory intent against a mother and unborn child because of the child’s sex, race or disability. The law was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Crawford in 2020. The law has not been challenged in court.*
The mission of the Mississippi Technology Institute is to provide a principled analysis of public policy issues with a focus on technological issues.
In the principles contained below, MTI seeks to provide the foundational elements of sound technology policy. Good policies will always follow good principles, and policies will always become flawed when they depart from good principles. MTI seeks to further advance its mission by declaring the key principles that guide its vision, purpose, and actions.
- The free market, not the government, is the gatekeeper of technological innovation.
There is no greater force for technological innovation than the free market at work. With this in mind, it is imperative to recognize that the government is not in a feasible position to effectively act as the gatekeeper of technological innovation. If all innovations must answer to government regulators, there is less potential that innovations will reach their full potential.
On the other hand, the government is not in a position to effectively determine which innovations should be favored and privileged. Since the government’s authority and revenue comes from the people, it makes little sense for government to favor certain innovations if the people themselves have not already given that innovation a thumbs up in the free market.
2. It is not the government’s responsibility to solve every problem that arises from technology.
Personal responsibility under the rule of law is essential for a free society. Without personal responsibility, individuals are relegated to the control of a nanny state. It is essential to recognize that technology is a powerful tool with much potential for good, but individuals are ultimately responsible for how they use technology. The more powerful technological tools are, the greater their capacity for good or for evil. If a government were responsible for removing every technological avenue that could potentially be used in bad faith, we’d have very little technological advancement.
When a new business uses technology to create an innovative concept, the government should not require that the business prove its technology's merit to regulators. The burden of proof lies on the government to objectively demonstrate the harm brought about by a new innovation.
3. Technology is an essential tool for economic prosperity that facilitates new opportunities and expands horizons.
In the dynamic and fast-paced economy of the 21st century, it is essential that businesses are able to adapt to the needs of customers in effective and innovative ways. This can be done using technology. In many ways, technology has become the key to expanded economic prosperity. From a public policy perspective, it is essential that governments ensure that this creative economic activity is welcomed so that existing businesses can grow, and new businesses can launch.
When businesses can harness the power of technology, their economic horizons expand. This often leads to greater profits, more employees, and better services. It’s good economic practice for government to actively remove regulatory obstacles that hinder the implementation of new technologies for existing businesses.
4. The regulation of technology should be informed by objective analysis that reflects the dynamic nature of innovation.
Technological advancement proceeds at an incredibly fast pace. In light of this, objective analysis must inform the regulation of technology. There is little potential for the growth of technology if regulators are subjectively determining the extent of government regulation without the input of subject-matter experts and data analysis.
The assumption that all products and innovations are inherently unsafe until government regulators prove otherwise, presupposes the government is always informed enough to make such determinations. This is simply not the case. Until informed experience and good data demonstrate otherwise, government should exercise a light touch when it comes to new technologies.
5. Technology policy is a tool that should be implemented with public accountability and fiscal responsibility.
Despite the great potential behind emerging technologies, no government policy is exempt from the safeguards of public accountability and fiscal responsibility. Every technological public policy must be reviewed from the perspective of a well-reasoned analysis that starts with principles rather than pragmatism.
No matter how much potential a technological policy may carry, it is not to be exempted from the necessity of cost-benefit analysis. No technology is priceless. From electric cars to solar panels, there are countless developing technologies that have considerable implications on a public policy level. In a day in which many technologies and their corresponding policies are heavily influenced by shifting social or political factors, it is essential that public policy is grounded in a carefully measured understanding of the key issues.
Additionally, it is fundamental that the power of technology be harnessed to facilitate greater government accountability. While technology cannot replace the accountability that the people properly have over the government, it is a critical tool that can assist them in their efforts. Rather than technology being used by the government to monitor the people, technology should be used by the people to monitor the government.
6. Government should not interfere in the free market or free trade by giving special privileges to particular technologies or technology companies.
The free market is not free to the extent that government intervenes. In light of the dynamic nature of economies and markets, government should not give preference or privilege to certain economic players in the technological sector. Although certain policies may only be applicable to certain players, no government action should give preference to a particular technology through redistributive policies. No specific business or technology should be given redistributed dollars that come from the pockets of taxpayers.
Regardless of the perceived economic potential, technology companies shouldn’t be subsidized with taxpayer funds. Technologies should be economically sustainable enough to self-fund by garnering consumer adoption. To use taxpayer dollars is to go outside of the free market and artificially hold up certain technologies. This threatens competition and gives an unbalanced advantage to the politically connected.
7. Although impactful, technological advancement is not sufficient to build and preserve a society.
The defining element of a society is its core values. A strong society must be grounded in the core values of its families, churches, and communities. Technology is a tool to live out those core values in a practical way. In the American context, these core values include a recognition of the God-given basis of freedom, the foundation of the nuclear family as the basic social unit, and an adherence to an objective standard of right and wrong.
Technology by itself is not a force that can cause any meaningful societal improvement. Societal improvement is driven by the practical application of the core values of individuals who strive toward a positive goal. Neither big business nor big government can adequately institute these values.
8. The use and development of technology should be informed by moral principles that uphold the dignity of the individual and the sacredness of civil liberties.
Technology is an incredibly powerful tool. Like all tools, it can be used for good or evil. The proper use of technology should be informed by a moral compass that is grounded in the principle that the rule of law must be informed by moral order and stability.
Given that all individuals have an inherent dignity that is to be honored and respected, technology policy should seek to stop those who use technology for the violation of personal rights. Criminal actors must be discouraged through the enforcement of policies that protect life, liberty, and property. Additionally, any individual who seeks to use technology to exploit others does not provide any lasting benefit to society by these actions, regardless of the economic gains that might come about.
As such, technology in itself is amoral. It is the individuals who use technology that are the moral agents, and it is their actions that have moral consequences. It is the responsibility of civil leaders to acknowledge this distinction and address abuses that come from the immoral use of technology by individuals and institutions.
9. Technology policy should not be used by government as a tool to create or sustain an atmosphere of surveillance, “cancel culture,” intimidation, and censorship.
In recent years, technology has become embedded in our daily lives. Almost every individual action utilizes technology in some way. Thus, there is a real threat from governments and groups wishing to use technology to deprive their fellow citizens of freedom.
Technology policy should not be used as a means to advance governmental control. Additionally, technology policy should not enable the systematic control of ideas by providing unequal protections to the technology sector due its economic resources, academic prowess, social influence, and political capital.
10. At the same time, technological development should be subordinated to the government’s duty to protect liberty from foreign and domestic threats to national security.
Technological advancement is a lesser good as compared to the protection and promotion of individual liberty. The highest duty of the American government is to uphold the order and stability necessary to advance freedom and the core values that have made our nation great. Thus, if a technological development poses a risk to our national defense and security (such as certain kinds of drone technology), this development must be properly managed until an acceptable alternative is found.
In addition, if a violation of individual rights is required in order for technological development to advance, such development should be halted.
Matthew Nicaud is the Tech Policy Specialist at the Mississippi Technology Institute, a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. The website for the Mississippi Technology Institute can be found here: https://mspolicy.org/mississippi-tech-institute/
Several groups from across the country, including the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, have signed a coalition letter making key policy recommendations for broadband spending.
The letter calls on policymakers to ensure that they spend broadband funding in an accountable and responsible way. In the wake of an almost unprecedented amount of federal spending, the coalition calls on policymakers to ensure that they responsibly manage broadband funds by prioritizing areas with the biggest connection gaps.
There have been some calls in Washington to redefine the legal definition of broadband by raising the speed benchmark. The coalition letter urges policymakers not to raise the benchmark when many areas have not even met the prior benchmark yet.
Raising the speed definition for broadband would hurt rural areas as funds would likely be diverted to allow for urban areas to upgrade their speeds to meet the new broadband speed benchmark. This a time that the nation has needed broadband access more than ever before and raising the broadband benchmark would put many rural and suburban communities only further behind as they compete for broadband funds with areas that already have service.
The letter notes:
“With billions of dollars available for broadband and other infrastructure, many densely populated areas with political clout have lobbied for these funds. State lawmakers should ensure broadband funds flow to areas that lack broadband access, as defined as 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload, rather than providing funding for areas that already meet these benchmarks. Expanding access should be lawmakers’ No. 1 priority.”
The letter also makes specific recommendations for policymakers to increase efficiency and lower costs by rejecting government-owned networks, cutting red tape, and pursuing free-market solutions to expanding broadband access. The letter notes again:
“Many of our states have had experiences with costly government owned networks which have done little to expand access or adoption… The money flowing to state coffers is not without limits. States should work to stretch every dollar as far as possible by removing red tape.”
The full text of the letter is available here. It was signed by Tech Policy Specialist, Matthew Nicaud, on behalf of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy and the Mississippi Technology Institute.
Policymakers must treat taxpayer funds with fiscal responsibility and public accountability. The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is proud to support sound policies that uphold the best interests of citizens and pursue real solutions to broadband expansion.