Sorry that the posting has been slim on my end...I guess you can say that I have actually been working the past week and have not let my newly found hobby get the best of me.
This morning I attended the ARRA Broadband Initiative Kick Off. To make this quick and painless, what I am talking about is a meeting between three agencies, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). This meeting was held so that a bunch of suits can gather in a large hall (harumph harumph harumph) and hear the heads of each of these agencies talk about absolutely NOTHING. (Technically the real purpose was to kickoff the conversation on how the Federal Stimulus monies that were provided for nationwide broadband deployment are going to be doled out and allocated inorder to promote the quickest build out of the fastest and most economically efficient broadband technologies to the UNserved and UNDERserved areas of our country.)
The head of each organization basically spouted off the same rehearsed generic uninformative script...(we need to make this happen fast, blah blah blah, we need to hear comments from the public, blah blah blah...we as a country have fallen way behind in broadband...). They also targeted the plight of the "downtrodden yet tech savvy, willing to track the market, farmer in Arkansas" and the "the sick child, in a hospital shack somewhere in the Illinois wilderness whose parents will loose their farm if their doctors cannot create telemedicinal joint efficiencies with their Champaign counterparts"(This sounds very dirty)??? I am not making this up, these exact examples were brought up three times this morning and seem to be the poster children of the Rural/ Nationwide Broadband penetration discussion.
Ok...where was I? Ohh yah! The Meeting/Hearing. I do not understand the point of these hearings. Aside from reciting the same scripts, when asked what they intend to do on certain issues, the heads of the organizations, throw the ball back to the audience..."Well good question, but that is why we are hear, to get more comments from you and hear what you have to say." I think if these officially came out with an initial stance on questions like...What is the definition of unserved area/ underserved areas, and what should the floor be for minimum broadband speeds, this comment process would be much more effective.
They are looking for a Rural Broadband Strategy...or so they say. The FCC has a giant building full of economists and engineers. What are these guys getting paid for? I understand the Administrative law process, it is slow and tedious...and we do not want to rush something that is so important to the future development of our country, but if all these agencies expect to move fast on these issues, the same old politician's answers will not cut it. We need action and decisions.
Set a very high broadband speed as a floor. (Or at least impose a scalable approach.) Start off by reaching out to the unserved areas first. Set guidelines for a standardized methodical broadband mapping plan. And, latch on to other shovel ready utility projects that are already creating new infrastructures and make sure broadband wire is bundled in with these other projects.
So why should you care? Well because as a country we have dropped from first to around 20 in terms of nationwide broadband penetration and broadband speeds. This is embarrassing. AND for all you pseudo fascist finance types on Wall St, by kick starting nationwide broadband deployment we would be kick starting the economy at the same time, (oh yah and saving your jobs.) I kiiid I kiiid...kinda.
Peace Out...for Now.
Lincoln Tron
12 years ago
6 comments:
Naoum - the part of the Illinois boy in the shack and their counterparts probably referred to Champaign, as in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Home of the Fighting Illini, Chief Illiniwek, and so on.
I understand your frustration with the slowness of the public comments process and the desire for quick action. But remember, everyone has a hobby horse that to them is a giant stallion, and they want quick resolution on THEIR major issues, especially if they're federal. How do you separate the wheat from the chaff, or if you prefer, the broadband from the dial-up?
And if you're upset by public officials refusing to stick their foot in the water and take public stances, you need to become a reporter. Your disquietude will turn into glum acceptance.
Champagne/ Champaign all the same!
I understand that everyone has their own "hobbyhorse" but much of the Rule Making procedure seems designed to brush off as much responsibility on others as possible. Someone has to make decisions...we do not want to make bad decisions and then have to take them back later, but we also do not want to remain stagnant. This reminds me of the ongoing indecency issues where Congress has told the FCC to define indecency and the FCC said that it was Congress' responsibility. If neither of them make a move there is no resolution. If no one wants to set the standards for fear of setting the wrong ones then why do we even have Regulatory Agencies to specialize in these issues.
It's also surprising that you're indignant about the FCC and members of Congress failing to pick up the ball about what ultimately amounts to indecency. I'm not indignant in the least. Can you imagine guys in the tradition of Adam Clayton Powell, Preston Brooks and Jim Traficant defining decency in any context? I'm not a "drown government in the bathtub" guy by any means, but the specter of "legislating morality" in this context, not exactly Civil Rights legislation for example, is a real bugbear.
I think we have regulatory agencies on these issues just to say that we have them, given how things have played out. "That's indecent that we don't have them!" some would shout. I'm not sure government is any worse or better than the private sector about having things around just to point to them when it's getting it's ear pinched.
I'm just thrilled at the prospect of the government pumping more of my money into "nationwide broadband deployment." At least it's not another Art Museum...
Indecency was a bad example. But, if anyone were to create a definition for indecency I think it would have to be Congress. I think a case by case review is not a bad idea in theory, but when the FCC is handing out arbitrary and capricious fines all over the place the process tends to get spoiled.
Naoumus - why would the process get spoiled? Handling individual situations on a case-by-case basis would seem to me, in an ideal world, the best method for dealing with them. However, if the FCC started doing that, it seems like it would get bogged down and not handle enough cases in a timely fashion. Notice how politicians rarely talk about "speedier government." It's a harder promise to keep. Yes, "government programs that work" is a popular phrase, but how fast will those programs work?
Post a Comment