Hopeful start to the new year that on January 6th the Department of Commerce released a meaty report and policy paper The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States to the U.S. Congress. This work indicates the growing level of urgency around our slipping national competitiveness and the need for both sides of the aisle to take this seriously and think and act long term. In advocating for more support of STEM education, government investment in research, and needed incentives for industry, the paper is an interesting follow up to the National Academies’ 2005 Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which formally presented many of these same ideas and messages. While Gathering Storm was considered a wake-up call at the time, sadly we are not in any better a position seven years later. It also came from an academic perspective, but now we have Commerce, advised by the National Economic Council, beating the drum. By summarizing the abundance of issues, from SmartGrid to broadband spectrum management to next gen air traffic control and more, hopefully the new Competitiveness and Innovation report will start getting Congress more focused on these big issues that are already impacting us economically and socially.
Posts Tagged ‘government funding
Think New
I was privileged to be among a couple hundred students and press who attended Hillary Clinton’s on campus speech today about Internet Freedom. After the happenings in Egypt, the new protests in Iran, Yemin and elsewhere, and the whole Wikileaks broohaha, she came forward with a clear, firm policy position on keeping the Internet free. Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, it was very exciting to be in the room. She is totally in command of her space, polished, poised and on point. A heckler was tackled by police a few feet away from her, yet she never even glanced. In the wake of the Tuscon shootings, I was impressed [although security at today’s venue was tight!].
She referenced 3 key Internet challenges – 1) Achieving libery and security; 2)protecting transparency and confidentiality; and 3) protecting free expression while fostering civility. All of these are obviously timely and are big issues associated with the Internet that are only going to increase. Her point, of course, was that the U.S. was trying to balance all of these. With regard to Wikileaks, she flat out called it a theft akin to smuggling confidential documents in a briefcase. It was interesting to see her directly address this issue, which caused the State Dept so much embarrassment and trouble. She contended, and in my opinion rightly, that governments need to keep some secrets for good reason – security, safety of those working in risky positions, etc. She also offered that a better answer to ‘offensive’ speech online was more speech – but of the nature to express what’s right, rather than ignoring or brushing what’s wrong under the rug.
Of the many points she made, the speech was obviously a timely policy statement on how the Administration is regarding and approaching Internet Freedom in this incredibly tumultuous time. The fact that such a speech was made by so prominent a person was indicative of the importance of the issue. The State Dept has an enhanced public diplomacy campaign of tweeting in Arabic, with Chinese, Farsi and other languages spoken in internet-repressed areas being added soon. Fascinating stuff.
And so it begins. Verizon yesterday filed the first legal challenge to the new FCC regulations around net neutrality. Petitioning the DC federal appeals court, Verizon is claiming the FCC has overstepped its authority by prohibiting carriers from discriminating against various kinds of internet traffic. Unlike telephone service which is heavily regulated, internet service is classified differently and is subject to much less government intervention. Predictably, big carriers immediately cried foul to any attempt to ensure the internet remains equally open to all subscribers, citing what of course leads to their own pocketbook interests.
There is a legitimate argument that fat files take more bandwidth and may need routing management to maintain performance for all. Video has been the increasing killer app for several years now, so this situation is not new or unexpected. But beyond that, there is a Carrier desire to charge extra for ‘special services’ – having worked in the IT Industry for many years, I read this as another opportunity for increased unbundling – a favorite technique for increasing revenue. Just as your cable TV has been creeping up for years, internet unbundling and ‘special services’ would have the same effect, and would in my opinion prohibit development and propagation of as-yet-unknown ideas and applications that come out of the digital community because things may get financially out of reach for users.
To be fair, I bitch like hell if my connection is slow, and many users [especially Millenials] excesively access fat files. Maybe some grading of the fee structure according to usage is not out of the question. Anyone on the internet is already paying access fees, which are not cheap – even my basic broadband hardwire is $30/month, which is more than land line phone service. Would you be willing to pay more for unfettered YouTube access?
So, the government could redefine and regulate broadband in the same model as the telephone, but there was big corporate and Republican pushback when this idea came up. The FCC’s December action tried to establish a compromise, but not surprisingly, one month later it’s already in court. I have a feeling this one could go all the way up the legal ladder, and Justice Roberts will surely put this one on the docket. Should be an interesting few years. Ma Bell Redux.
The Changing Energy Future
I was very fortunate to attend the Energy Innovation conference this week in DC – put on at the venerable National Press Club by ITIF and the Breakthrough Institute [kudos for this excellent effort, made available free of charge to probably 200 attendees from around the country]. Outstanding panels of top SMEs on this subject, from policy experts to scientists and even a few politicians attempting to find common ground on this urgent issue. The good news? There are many alternative energy sources [read that not fossil fuels] already in existence and in use. The experts predict there will be more that perhaps are today in the lab or not even that far along. The less than great news: we’re not adopting them near as quickly as we should to capitalize on the many benefits available – lower costs, lower carbon, job creation, national security and stability [less dependence on foreign fuel sources] etc. I was optimistic and frustrated at the same time. Status quo industry lobbies and politics as usual keep us from charging ahead in what is a no-brainer if you get insight into the facts and realities – the need to shift from energy generation and consumption patterns of the 20th century is not an option, but a question of when and how. That was something every one of these expert speakers – regardless of political philosophy – agreed on and was there to advocate. Attending this event took me back to GFN’s Footprint Forum 2007 in Sienna, Italy, where I lead a workshop for scientists and policy people on why it’s helpful to use positive communication to talk about environmental issues that could otherwise scare the bejezzus out of people. The conversation about our future as a planet and what we do with the resources we’ve got is amping up. It’s time to get up that bell curve to where average, ordinary people are getting on board and making changes to how they consume.
Leak Peeping?
One week from finishing my intense first semester as a grad school at one of the country’s leading International Affairs Schools [Yay, Elliott School!], the world and particularly the US finds itself enmeshed in the Wikileaks ‘situation’. Many of my classmates work at the State Department, and I can tell how this is uncomfortable for them. What an interesting time to be studying international affairs and foreign policy – EXCEPT… Yesterday, I received an advisory email from the University suggesting I consider not looking at Wikileaks material if I have any thought to getting a job with a security clearance – which many GWU student do. Of course, someone telling me not to do something makes me want to do it – just a peep, but who knows how much is really there that’s probably really interesting – from a policy as well as a gossip perspective. Yet, I have not, and probably will not look at any material on Wikileaks. Perhaps a clearance is in my work future – I’d like to leave that possibility open and not have to worry about a polygraph catching me in a lie.
Still, the idea of it, from a communications and information access perspective shows an interesting dilemma in the modern world. The material is ‘classified’ and its release has not been authorized. Looking at it online could be construed by potential employers [who need employees that can be cleared] as illegally accessing classified material. Sharing it with others would be worse, and a comment on your character as someone probably not worthy of a clearance. We certainly can’t cite it in papers or class projects. But, realistically, this information is now in the public domain, and anyone can see it. This creates a rather unprecedented conundrum for job-seeking students [and even some faculty for that matter] in the digital age. Where is the line on protected content now drawn? Will some of us really maintain that self control and integrity to follow the rules, even when the insights that could come from consuming the material could influence work opinions, judgement, understanding and maturity in ways we could not have without perhaps years of experience? This issue is fascinating, complex and way far from being resolved.
Despite thinking I was savvy about politics and the ways of Washington, what a neophyte I am. In my Science and Technology Policy cornerstone class, we’re reviewing the federal budget, specifically as it relates to R&D. First eye opener for me – ‘technology’ means something a lot bigger than Silicon Valley’s self-centric view. While IT elitists give the occassional nod to biotech, in the government world, technology encompasses agriculture and military arsenals. Science and technology R&D reaches aerospace, energy, the environment, the weather and climate change, health and biomedics, aviation, cyber security, solar, the US geological survey, nanotechnology and networking and IT and more. And that’s BEFORE the Dept of Defense, whose budget is of course completely separate from the Dept of Homeland Security [aren’t they trying to achieve the same goal?]. Many, many billions are spent annually on gov’t funded R&D, most of it ‘mission specific’ in support of the particular agency’s reason for being. Yet my class readings warn of inadequate investment in pure research, whose discoveries can be hard to quantify and who may not yield their maximum value for years. For example, GPS, the World Wide Web, artificial hearts, statin drugs … all derived out of government R&D projects implemented years earlier. If industry only funds what will have private payback for the funders, then, the argument goes, it is government’s role to continue pure research. No proof, nothing measurable, but probabilities. I guess the future of science relies on a present leap of faith. Of course then there’s the politics of it all…
The Dialog Blog 