According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, information services, which includes telecommunications and broadcast services, saw its contribution to gross domestic product increase 10.6% in the fourth quarter of 2015. That was a big jump from the .4% increase in contribution to GDP in the third quarter of 2015. According to the BEA, fourth quarter growth primarily reflected increases in telecommunications and broadcast.
While real gross output increased just 1.4% for the United States in fourth quarter 2015, the information services sector saw its real gross output increase by 10.8% in the fourth quarter of 2015. For all of 2015, real gross domestic product for the United States increased by 2.4%, but for the information services sector alone, gross domestic product increased 6.3% for 2015.
Proponents of Title II common carrier regulation and open internet rules have not given their preferred regulatory framework any credit for the performance of the information services sector. For example, a review of Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler’s blog posts and statements at the time BEA released its report in April 2016 reveals no reference to the information services sector’s contribution to GDP. In a March 2016 blog post. Mr. Wheeler acknowledged the negative impact rate regulation could have on innovation and investment:
“But the 1996 Act did not change the basic economics of building and running large communications networks. Whether they are wireless or fixed, operating these networks is a capital-intensive undertaking. It requires the purchase of expensive inputs like spectrum, optical fiber, and radio antennae, plus the additional administrative and legal expenses of deploying these resources in the cities, towns and rural communities where network users live and work. While the FCC has taken many steps over the years and is still working to promote competition among network service providers, the fact remains that the financial barriers to building these networks are formidable, and most American consumers have few or no choices when it comes to this service. Our most recent Broadband Progress Report, for example, found that only 38 percent of Americans have more than one option for fixed advanced telecommunications technology.
One of the biggest challenges I have confronted in my time at the Commission is facing down the false choice between investment and openness. I believe our Open Internet Order took the right approach, by protecting entrepreneurs and small businesses’ free and open access to the Internet, while also forbearing from sections of Title II like rate regulation and unbundling that might reduce network owners’ incentives to continue building out their networks and investing in new technologies like 5G.”
If Mr. Wheeler believes that forbearance from rate regulation will provide incentives for continued investment in broadband networks, then investors should expect continued positive growth in the integrated telecommunications services industry which has seen market value increase 2.69% over the past year, just as long as Mr. Wheeler keeps his word. I don’t believe Mr. Wheeler has any incentive to go back on his word to forbear. To do so would put the final dagger in the heart of the initiative to apply Title II to broadband providers and prove the anti-Title II constituency’s argument that Title II is bad for growth and investment.
So while we haven’t seen an argument that Title II regulation is responsible for information services positive contribution to growth, I wouldn’t expect to see one any time in the near future.