Republican strategist Grover Norquist assailed over broadband

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[Grover's instincts on regulation seem, in my experience, to be
generally good (for a conservative). But telecom is a complex area and
it is easy to get confused about which outcome is preferable and least
intrusive. So Grover's apparent lapse could be an honest one born of
complexity, or, alternatively, he could be siding with Karl Rove for
political reasons. I haven't spoken to Grover on this issue and don't
know either way. --Declan]


-----Original Message-----
From: David Fish [mailto:DFish () pff org]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:19 AM
Subject: Telecom Dereg/ Broadband: Experts, Think Tank Heads Question
Norquist


We've had many requests for the letter mentioned in today's Washington Post
business section about broadband/telecom.  Signed by 12 policy experts and
think tank presidents associated with The Progress & Freedom Foundation,
Pacific Research Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Institute for
Policy Innovation, the Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institution, Competitive
Enterprise Institute and Discovery Institute, the letter questions fellow
conservative Grover Norquist's (an unofficial Bush administration advisor
and head of Americans for Tax Reform) "pro-regulation position" on
telecommunications deregulation.  Norquist had sent a previous public letter
to President Bush in which he attacked an earlier letter from senators
(including Sen. Hillary Clinton) to the President for urging what the
senators called a "national broadband policy."  The letter below, signed by
12 leading conservative or market-oriented policy experts, includes a list
of many studies that promote a national policy --- of deregulation.
Following the letter is a page of links to studies supporting deregulation
of broadband. They include a piece by CATO's Adam Thierer, questioning
Norquist's position. Separately, a February 11 editorial in the Wall Street
Journal, "Broadband Fiasco", articulated the market-oriented deregulatory
approach to broadband taken by most market-oriented conservatives, including
the 12 signers.

* See Feb. 25 letter below (part of this email, below my contact
information)

* Link to related CATO piece, "An Open Letter to a Pro-Regulation
Conservative":
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040217-tk.html
<http://cato-subscriptions.org/c.html?rtr=on&s=77z,594l,94v,9dyb,f5cv,jbf3,i
pqz

Hope this information helps,

David Fish

David M. Fish
VP for Communications & External Affairs
The Progress & Freedom Foundation
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 1075
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-289-8928
Fax: 202-289-6079
E-mail: dfish () pff org
Web site: www. pff.org

February 25, 2004

Mr. Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform
1920 L Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC  20036

Dear Grover:

         We are writing to ask you to reconsider your pro-regulatory views on
telecommunications issues - views you expressed most recently in your
January 26 letter to President Bush.

         Your position on telecommunications deregulation is contrary to the
views of the vast majority of free-market economists and policy analysts.
Your continuing advocacy of the pro-regulation position is destructive to
the cause of limited government.  To the extent your efforts are successful,
the effect will be to reduce capital formation, slow job creation, impede
productivity growth and stifle individual liberty and economic freedom.

Telecommunications regulation is complex, which is why a number of us who
have studied the issue have sought to brief you on the results of our
research.  As you know, studies by virtually every major free-market think
tank (a partial listing of which is attached) have demonstrated the need for
deregulation.  As the attached articles from the Cato Institute, the
Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal editorial page suggest, this
view is widely shared in the free-market community.

We are particularly concerned that you have allowed your usual good judgment
on matters such as this to be swayed by superficial concerns about politics.
Certainly that would seem to be a reasonable interpretation of your January
26 letter, which focuses on one of the phrases that has been used to
describe telecom deregulation ("national broadband policy"), and on the fact
that deregulation has support from some labor unions and Democratic
politicians.

On these issues, you should consider three points.  First, the sort of
"industrial policy" you attack in your letter is precisely what is in place
now, left over from the prior administration.  By contrast, as the Journal
editorial makes clear, the goal of "a clear national broadband policy" is
"to deregulate the market."  Second, deregulation, by any name, is a
desirable goal.  Third, political support for doing the right thing -
whether it is cutting taxes or reducing regulation - should not be rejected
simply because it comes from outside the traditional "free market" base.

By the same token, and as you have often said, there is nothing so
destructive as when a leader of the free market movement "joins the other
team."  On this issue, we very much hope we can persuade you to come back to
the side of limited government, where we all know you belong.

Sincerely,


Sonia Arrison
Director, Technology Studies*
Pacific Research Institute

Jeffrey A. Eisenach
Board Member and Past President
The Progress & Freedom Foundation

Raymond L. Gifford
President
The Progress & Freedom Foundation

Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation

Thomas W. Hazlett
Senior Fellow
The Manhattan Institute

James C. Miller III
Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution

Sally C. Pipes
President and Chief Executive Officer
Pacific Research Institute

Solveig Singleton
Senior Policy Analyst
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Fred L. Smith, Jr.
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

John C. Wohlstetter
Senior Fellow
Discovery Institute
* Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.

Enclosures

cc:  The Honorable George W. Bush



MAJOR THINK TANK STUDIES ON TELECOM DEREGULATION

*       Barry M. Aarons,  "Don't Call, Just Send Me an Email: The New
Competition for Traditional Telecom", Institute for Policy Innovation,
January 27, 2003.
<http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/3CC2D910CE3D7F38862567D9005A288F
/1AF69786CF30FD9D86256D720016A5D2?OpenDocument

*       Sonia Arrison, "Telescam: How Telecom Regulations Harm California
Consumers," Pacific Research Institute, Aug. 27, 2003.
<http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/ecp/2003/epolicy08-27.html

*       Theodore R. Bolema, Diane Katz, "Crossed Lines: Regulatory Missteps
in Telecom Policy," Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Dec. 2003.
<http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2003/s2003-04.pdf

*       Wayne T. Brough, Ph.D.,  "State Economies Can Benefit from Broadband
Deployment," Citizens For a Sound Economy, Dec. 1, 2003.
<http://www.cse.org/reports/Broadband_Study.pdf

*       Robert W. Crandall, J. Gregory Sidak, Hal J. Singer, "The Empirical
Case Against Asymmetric Regulation of Broadband Internet Access," Berkeley
Technology Law Journal, 2002.
<http://www.criterioneconomics.com/articles/singer_broadbandarticle.pdf

         *       Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. and Adam Thierer "What's Yours Is
Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism," CATO, (2003).
<http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=30&pi
d=1441099

         *       Jeffrey A. Eisenach and Thomas M. Lenard, "Telecom
Deregulation and the Economy: The Impact of "UNE-P" on Jobs, Investment and
Growth," The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Jan. 2003.
<http://www.pff.org/publications/communications/pop10.3unepimpact.pdf

         *       Anne Layne-Farrar, NERA Economic Consulting; Robert W. Hahn,
AEI-Brookings Joint Center; Peter Passell, Milken Institute,  "Federalism
and Regulation," <http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040203_v26n47.pdf

         *       James L. Gattuso and Edwin Meese III, "Votes May Be Hiding
in Heap of Regulations," Heritage Foundation, Feb. 3, 2004.
<http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020304a.cfm
         *       James L. Gattuso, "Local Telephone Competition: Unbundling
the FCC's Rules," Heritage Foundation, Feb. 10, 2003.
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/bg1621.cfm

         *       James L. Gattuso, "The Tauzin-Dingell Telecom Bill:
Untangling the Confusion," Heritage Foundation, Feb. 25, 2002.
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechnology/EM802.cfm

         *       James L. Gattuso, "Bundles of Trouble: The FCC's Telephone
Competition Rules," WebMemo #432, Jan. 21, 2004.
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm432.cfm

         *       Raymond L. Gifford and Adam Peters, "Principles for Texas
Communications Law," The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Dec. 2003.
<http://www.pff.org/publications/communications/pop10.25texas.pdf

         *       Diane Katz, "FCC Order Will Fail to Open the Telecom
Market," Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Sep. 8, 2003.
<http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=5736

         *       Joseph S. Kraemer, Richard O. Levine, and Randolph J. May,
"Trends in the Competitiveness of Telecommunications Markets: Implications
for Deregulation of Retail Local Services," The Progress & Freedom
Foundation, Dec. 2003.
<http://www.pff.org/publications/communications/121103specialreportcontestab
ility.pdf

         *       Randolph J. May, "A Free-Market Scorecard," Regulation
Magazine, Oct. 2002.
<http://www.pff.org/publications/communications/102202scorecard.pdf

         *       Solveig Singleton, "Federalism Heresies for the Internet
Age," Competitive Enterprise Institute, Jan. 30, 2004.
<http://www.cei.org/gencon/016,03838.cfm

         *       Solveig Singleton, "Getting Through the Terrible TELRICs,"
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Dec. 31, 2003.
<http://www.cei.org/gencon/016,03793.cfm

         *       Solveig Singleton, "Review of the Commission's Rules
Regarding the Pricing of Unbundled Network Elements and the Resale of
Service by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (WC Docket No. 03-173),"
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Dec. 17, 2003.
<http://www.cei.org/pdf/3778.pdf

         *       Solveig Singleton, "Written Submission Of the Competitive
Enterprise Institute Regarding the Telecom & High Tech Manufacturing
Sector," Competitive Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2003.
<http://www.cei.org/pdf/3634.pdf

         *       Solveig Singleton
<http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_expert.cfm?expert=163 and Fred L. Smith, Jr.
<http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_expert.cfm?expert=32, "An Open Letter To The
Bush Administration On Its Plan To Unbundle Local Phone Networks,"
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mar. 10, 2003.
<http://www.cei.org/gencon/027,03388.cfm

         *       Adam Thierer, " An Open Letter to Pro-Regulation
Conservatives," TechKnowledge No. 58, CATO, Feb. 18, 2004.
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040217-tk.html
<http://cato-subscriptions.org/c.html?rtr=on&s=77z,594l,94v,9dyb,f5cv,jbf3,i
pqz

         *       Adam Thierer, "Was the UNE Triennial Review Worth the Wait?
Part II: The Substance," TechKnowledge No. 58, CATO, Sept. 15, 2003.
<http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/030915-tk.html

         *       Adam Thierer, "Was the UNE Triennial Review Worth the Wait?
Part 1: The Process," TechKnowledge No. 57, CATO Aug. 29, 2003.
<http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/030829-tk.html

         *       "Broadband Fiasco," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11, 2004.


----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)