Does the United States need a Chief Technical Officer? In this ViodiTV interview from the 2008 OPASTCO Summer Convention, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein suggested that a CTO of sorts is necessary to help tie together the disparate efforts and needs of various Federal agencies. Adelstein pointed out that the FCC represents one slice of what should be a pan-agency process to address broadband and applications that can affect programs such as health care, homeland security, low-income housing. He also discusses the intrinsic link between video and the deployment of broadband, as well as the importance of local management and ownership for the creation of robust rural economies.
Great clip Viodi! Adelstein has some interesting points. A government CTO seems like a great idea, but I wonder if such a post could really be effective across the gov’t's vast bureacracy.
The government does not have the legal authority to do most of Adelstein proposes.
Most of the problems we have experienced and are facing are a result of the government illegally getting into the regulation business. The instant they began to implement regulation on things that they had no skill with or knowledge of, they became susceptible to pressure, greed, and graft from special interest groups, industry, banking, and anyone else in the world with money.
Looking at Telecom regulation, for instance, first we had regulation. Then we had deregulation which was primarily pushed for by the Fed. The only problem was that it wasn’t deregulation. After paying for and installing their infrastructures over decades, the TelCos were forced to give up their property for less than what it was worth and provide it to anyone who wanted to be a telecom provider while they remained regulated to their service areas and rates. This was government theft of private property. It did create a need for money which the banks were more than happy to loan. We all know what happened after that.
The same thing has happened in the transportation, energy, building, and banking industries.
Instead of illegal regulation, the government could have taken the Constitution and argued that, with the advent of technology, in order for all individuals to enjoy and exercise their freedom of speech equally, they must all have access to telecommunications at affordable rates. The same argument would have allowed them to legally implement the RUS.
The government only has the legal authority to evaluate technology as it affects equal rights among the population.
If the government ends up with a CTO, supposedly for the good of the country, we will soon be faced with another bureaucracy, more taxation, and a maze of regulations that subtly control the development of technology in the country.
There was definitely a sense of frustration among many of the 2008 OPASTCO Summer Convention attendees, with whom I spoke regarding the length of time it takes for the FCC to enforce its own rules and to make a decision, right or wrong. It was expressed by at least one attendee that this indecisiveness impacts the industry by making it difficult to make long-term business decisions.
Unfortunately, the nature of Government is such that bold, decisive action by an agency will upset someone with a different political agenda and could lead to the decisive person’s ouster. As a result, government regulation cannot keep up with the rapid business model innovation of telecom.
To fix this, there probably needs to be some fundamental structural change to the FCC and its mission; maybe something in between getting rid of the FCC and making it a pan-agency responsible for coordination broadband and technology policy. The question is can this be done without the creation of a new bureaucracy or increased spending.