“The FCC’s decision to gather more information before enacting new Internet regulation is an encouraging indication that it remains committed to a fact-based process. The focus on specialized services and wireless also suggests that the Commission appreciates the complexity of regulation in these areas and is looking for a way to ensure continued innovation that serves consumers. We believe that a careful review will demonstrate that consumers have been well served by the relatively light-touch regulation that has historically been applied to the Internet, and that excessive regulation could slow the introduction of new services and innovation, impede investment and competition, and raise consumer prices.”

The New Jersey legislature is considering a bill that would require better labeling on printers and cartridges.  In addition, weights and measures organizations are investing the problem.

The fact is that better information would heighten competition and bring savings to consumers.  Our research finds that consumers can save up to $6 billion per year, if only they had better information on the ink cost per page. 

Thanks for sharing your views!

Steve

We have analyzed the proposed Google/Verizon Net Neutrality agreement and believe that the framework moves the debate closer to resolution by considering the perspectives of opposing sides and finding common ground, reaffirming the four principles for open networks, and embracing new levels of transparency.  The agreement of these very pro-consumer principles is a credit to both parties, but it shows that these corporations need to make important concessions in the interest of consumers.  The agreement is evidence of this progress.

For its part, the parties have recognized, as we have, that wireless networks are different, and that it is beneficial for consumers to have different ways of delivering services. 

The proposed framework provides a positive environment for future investment, jobs and completion by protecting everything that the Internet brings us today, as well as encouraging tomorrow’s promise of choice and innovation of services and applications, including differentiated services like home health care monitoring.  In short, it creates a clear path for the future of an open Internet.

We continue to have concerns about the possible imposition of strict net neutrality regulations that would hurt investment and innovation.  If rigid rules were imposed, policymakers would risk locking innovation into today’s model of the Internet, when nobody really can predict future innovations – not providers, not consumers and not policymakers.  That is why this suggested framework can be so beneficial to consumers, investors, competitors and the creation of information technology jobs. 

In summary, the debate has been good for consumers because it has resulted in getting various sides to find common ground.  We applaud the parties in proposing a workable public policy solution that would benefit consumers, preserve jobs and provide a path for future growth.

“Regulators should not be management consultants”

Following The Heartland Institute’s release of Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) emails, the state’s insurance commissioner, Kevin McCarty, wrote to Heartland defending his agency’s actions in the weeks leading up to the insolvency of the Northern Capital Group of companies.

Christian R. Cámara, Florida director of Heartland’s Center on Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, and Eli Lehrer, the center’s national director, say McCarty’s statement proves Heartland’s point that OIR put the interests of a company ahead of the interests of Florida consumers.

“We are aware that Florida law allows OIR to keep the details of a company placed under administrative supervision from the public,” said Cámara. “However, it also provides OIR the discretion to release such information when doing so would serve the public interest. OIR rightfully did just that in the case of Magnolia Insurance, but it chose to keep Northern Capital’s administrative supervision from the public. Although OIR did nothing illegal, I believe it made the wrong policy decision in keeping consumers in the dark about a company being barred from doing business because of its inability to pay claims.”

Lehrer says OIR is playing the wrong role.

“OIR’s job is to protect consumers, not the industry,” Lehrer said. “Regulators should not be management consultants. Consumers’ interests have to come before those of insurance company owners.”

This release is available at the Heartland Institute.

Statement Regarding the Announcement of 37 States to Investigate Google’s Street View Snooping

Washington, DC (July 22, 2010) – The following is a statement by Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute:

“Today, 37 state Attorneys General spanning the country announced they were joining forces to launch a bipartisan investigation to determine if Google is snooping and acquiring consumers’ personal and proprietary information for their own profit.  For some time now, consumers have been asking aloud if they are being misled.  Now, the state attorney generals have heeded that call.  This unprecedented legal action will determine if there is possible criminal activity and get answers to some serious consumer questions: Is Google collecting my personal information and invading my privacy for profit?  It is time for Google to come clean with consumers and law enforcement
officials.”

The result is a big win benefit for consumers, who will benefit from safe driving by receiving discounted rates.

The newly released GAO report, “Natural Catastrophe Insurance Coverage Remains a Challenge for State Programs,” supports ACI’s conclusion that state funds “discourage private market involvement and mitigation.”  The report finds that some states are setting insurance prices below cost, driving out private insurers and putting nearly involvent state-run “public options” in their place. 

So that when a storm arrives, states like Florida and Texas levy assessments on consumers and insurers, including those that may not own any property at all.  The subsidies encourage development in coastal areas that put more lives and property at risk, eventually raising insurance prices for all.  

States generally cite the “need for insolvency” as the justification for insurance regulation.  Ironically, however, some states have pushed private insurers out of the market and replaced them with state-fund insurers and upstart insurers that have insufficient reserves to protect consumers, leaving consumers in the cold, should catastrophe strike.  As a result, states have created cat funds that are nearly insolvent and forced the remaining insurers to price so low that consumers may not have any confidence that their claims will be paid.  

Now some states have been pressuring the Federal government to pass legislation to bailout these nearly insolvent state funds, but the states current Federal cat fund is in red too! 

A better solution would be to let the market function, bring capital back into the state to bolster solvency and price closer to risk.  This approach would provide consumers the protection they need, should a storm arrive.

Read the article by clicking here.