FC: Beware Joe Lieberman's broadband-industrial-policy, CEI says

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

----- Forwarded message from Richard Morrison <rmorrison () cei org> -----

From: "Richard Morrison" <rmorrison () cei org>
Subject: CEI's Weekly Commentary:  Lieberman on Broadband
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 13:10:09 -0400

CEI C:\SPIN 
  This issue:  One Small Two-Step for Political Man:  Joe Lieberman on
Broadband 
 
    This week's c:\spin, on broadband policy, is by James Gattuso
<http://www.heritage.org/staff/gattuso.html> , Research Fellow in
Regulatory Policy, The Heritage Foundation <http://www.heritage.org/> ,
May 31, 2002.
 
As a rule of thumb, one should be wary of anyone in Washington invoking
President Kennedy's call to land a man on the moon.   For the past 40
years, every rhetorician worth his salt has called for a Kennedyesque
national program to meet their favored goal.   Senator Joe Lieberman did
that with gusto this week, invoking not just Kennedy, but Eisenhower and
Lincoln too, in favor of a broadband industrial policy.
 
Lieberman, who is expected to introduce legislation on the topic next
week, is but the latest player in an increasingly crowded Senate
broadband debate.  Senators Breaux and Nickles introduced a "regulatory
parity" bill <http://www.senate.gov/~breaux/releases/2002430907.html>
last month, followed by a subsidy plan by Senator Hollings
<http://www.senate.gov/~hollings> .  John McCain
<http://mccain.senate.gov/>  is also expected to join the fray soon.
 
Lieberman's 54-page report
<http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/press/white_paper/broadband.pdf>  is
certainly comprehensive.  The major theme:  government should adopt a
national policy for making broadband a priority.  In so doing, Lieberman
- a 2004 presidential hopeful -- implicitly scores the Administration
for not presenting its views on broadband, proposing to require it to do
so within six months.  Fair enough - the White House has been
conspicuous by its silence <http://www.cei.org/gencon/016,02839.cfm>  on
broadband regulation. 
 
Going further, the report argues for a policy declaring broadband to be
a key technology of the future.   At every turn, it exudes certainty
over the future of this technology.  It declares broadband to be a
"necessary condition" for improvement in the IT industry.  It says the
technology "will" transform commerce.  Its growth "will" be
demand-driven.  The benefits "will" be greater than we expect.   Based
on this, Lieberman proposes a series of steps to subsidize the
technology, ranging from tax credits, loans and grants to spending on
research. 
 
There's certainly reason to be bullish on broadband - I am too.  It does
have terrific potential.  But a little humility is called for.  Can
anyone, especially government, flatly say this or that technology
definitely will be successful and in what way?    Government-proclaimed
technologies of the future that flopped are numerous.   Does anyone
remember video dial tone telephone service?  Can you say HDTV?   The
fact is that consumer technologies are notoriously unpredictable.  To
pretend otherwise is to indulge in Hayak's fatal conceit
<http://www.hayekcenter.org/hayekbib/bibcw1.html> .  
 
Making broadband an officially favored technology has its practical
drawbacks <http://www.cei.org/gencon/016,02223.cfm>  as well.  Even if
we aren't concerned about distorting investments away from other
promising technologies, subsidies will likely end up favoring one type
of broadband technology over another - regardless of how many times
neutrality is pledged. (Slower-speed satellite broadband systems, for
example, are unlikely to receive equal favor).
 
Forswearing industrial policy, however, doesn't mean government can't do
anything to help broadband.  The choice isn't between subsidizing and
ignoring this potentially critical service.  Why not look toward
removing government barriers to its development?  
 
On this score, the Lieberman report does make some worthwhile
suggestions - such as limiting local right-of-way fees and providing
more spectrum for wireless providers.  But, on most issues, Lieberman
performs an awe-inspiring politician's dance, discussing the topic,
grimly intoning how important it is, then moving on without stating a
position. (Kids, don't try this at home:  only professionals should
attempt that kind of two-step).
 
A glaring case in point: in one section, the key issues of competition
and the history of FCC regulation are discussed extensively and the
various pending proposals outlined.  "We cannot avoid debate over
competition," the report reminds us.  It then goes on to avoid the
debate over competition, not even hinting at a position.         
  
That's a shame.  In a report focused on the need for leadership on
broadband policy, Senator Lieberman shuns it in the areas where it is
most needed. 
 
 
C:\SPIN is produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

----- End forwarded message -----




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------