Policy Wonkery

A new Internet power structure is being developed by some heavy hitters in the American telecom industry.  The creation of the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG or TAG) was announced today by Adjunct Professor Dale Hatfield (see picture) of the University of Colorado at Boulder.  Professor Hatfield has been called on to facilitate TAG, which he described as “a neutral, expert technical forum [to] promote a greater consensus around technical practices within the Internet community.” As the former Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology and before that Chief Technologist at the Federal Communications Commission, Professor Hatfield is well respected in the field.

What does this new group mean for the tech sector?  Before it becomes active, it’s difficult to know definitively what TAG’s roll will be, however we can already answer some important questions:

1. What kind of policies does Dale Hatfield endorse?
2. Who are the initial sponsors of TAG?
3. Who outside of the committee is endorsing TAG?

The answers to questions one and three are for another blogpost. Dale Hatfield’s bio didn’t provide any immediate insights for me into his policy leanings.  While Leslie Daigle of the Internet Society is quoted in the PRwire endorsing TAG, we’ll probably have to wait on other endorsements in the months ahead for a real answer to question one. For now, let’s focus on the second question: Who are the initial sponsors of TAG?

I want to look at the founding members of TAG to try and pose a conjecture about what type of policies they might endorse. From this, we can also infer how powerful is their collective voice.  The list of founding members — 10 in all — is full of big names: AT&T, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Comcast Corporation, DISH Network, L.L.C., EchoStar Corporation, Google, Inc., Intel Corporation, Level 3 Communications, LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.

My first observation is that this list of players is seriously tilted towards “the tubes“  and away from content — no surprise considering this is a broadband group.



I just hope that we can resolve Net-Neutrality before this group starts having a larger voice.  While the above graph might be able to bring these players into lockstep on Net-Neutrality (as each would benefit from charging content creators for access) the committee is otherwise surprisingly diverse.  I consider Verizon to be a half-cable and half-telephone company — see my excel file here.

Bringing together companies from telephone, cable, and satellite seems promising because it’s important that these traditional competitors can find common standards and consensus.  Thankfully, while currently occupied by major players, the committee is committed to “diverse membership” and experts from other companies, non-profit groups, academics, and the Internet community will be invited to participate.

If Leslie Daigle hadn’t endorsed Professor Hatfield and TAG, I might be more concerned. As it stands, the Internet Society (ISOC) provides an open and diverse forum for discussing these issues amongst experts — essentially, they’ve been doing what TAG proposes to do, only ISOC’s been in the game for 18 years. Hopefully these two forums will help focus the discussion around broadband and provide consensus based solutions, rather than proving themselves redundant.

Today, Peter Orzag, head of the OMB, gave a critical speech that claimed that government agencies should make deep cuts across the board.  While I won’t conjecture about how realistic these plans are, I will say that I was very excited about the focus of his speech. Orzag firmly stated that “closing the IT gap is perhaps the single most important step we can take in creating a more efficient and responsive government.”  I could not agree more.

He then broke down how far behind government has fallen, stating,

Both the public and private sectors productivity growth were matched through 1987. But the private sector’s growth rose by 1.5 percent annually through 1995, while the public sector grew by only 0.4 percent per year. As the private sector’s productivity took off again after 1995, the public sector lagged behind.

Amusingly, Orzag followed this statement by noting that he can’t provide recent statistics because the Bureau of Labor Statistics stopped collecting these statistics due to budget cuts.  This seems to demonstrate the disconnect between budget cuts and efficiency. Thankfully, we’ve known for years that technology is responsible for increases in productivity.  But even more important than the gains from new technology is the productivity gained when lots of people know how to use it.

While Orzag emphasizes physical technology (i.e., old computers), I am equally concerned that federal workers have their hands tied by the usage of technology. The federal government is only very slowly beginning to use social networking to its full advantage. Concerns over privacy, messaging, and security are holding federal employees back. A great example of this stoppage lies with an intern at the EPA who posted on a private blog about the benefits of vegetarianism.  She was attacked by officials at the Department of Agriculture and those in the meat industry.  Speaking as a blogger and as a citizen, I think the real step toward “closing the IT gap” needs to include the creation of a political environment that both promotes government transparency and empowers government workers to use the web without fear.

Many of us twenty-somethings remember the early 1990s as a time when the collective political establishment seemed to be censoring music, television, video games, and the internet for the sake of “the children.”  While it was frustrating to experience this period as a kid, parents were empowered by it, and the fear-mongering really only went so far.

Thankfully in 2010, with the internet revolution in full pace and over a decade of evidence-based study, concerns for America’s children can be more rationally addressed. The Online Safety and Technology Working Group, created by congressional law, has been operating under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for the past 15 months to release today its 148 page report titled “Youth Safety on a Living Internet.”

Not surprisingly, the type of large scale problems identified by the report are cyberbullying and sexting — problems that we’ve had with children for generations (i.e., bullying and sex).  That’s not to say that we shouldn’t try to address these issues.  Interestingly, the study mentions that concurrent with the rise in Internet bullying is a drop in physical bullying, down to 15% of students in 2008 from 22% in 2003.

Of course, the paper also discusses the continual problems of child pornography and adult predators.  These issues are put in perceptive: evidence suggests that sexual assault is still most likely caused by someone who knows the child targeted.  The report does a pretty good job establishing that how we interact online should be very similar to how we act in person:  So, parents have a role in educating their children about the danger signs, which are basically the same online as they are in the park.

Although I was concerned about the report’s emphasis on data retention — 1 of the 4 subcommittees established was dedicated to it — thankfully, OSTWG suggests that we assess the 2008 PROTECT Our Children Act before making data retention mandatory. The Working Group also made some promising strides with their suggestions for ongoing technological innovation, which give parents more control, and their recommended changes for how we teach net literacy.

While I’m a far way off from having children of my own, when I do I’ll probably fit into the camp that might not let their children watch television, but will let them have complete internet access.  Kids learn more through generative communication than mass broadcasting.

Today I attended a conference hosted by Public Knowledge titled, “Toward a Sustainable Spectrum Policy: Rethinking Federal Spectrum.”  There were two panels.  The first addressed a Public Knowledge white paper on developing a Federal Spectrum Secondary Market.  The Second discussed how to improve Federal Spectrum Management.

Since I should probably read the white paper before I provide my opinion, I’m going to address the second panel.  As tends to happen in this circle, the discussion shifted from the subject of spectrum management to the best way of liberating spectrum from government use. It should be no  surprise that this line of thought brings together the strange alliance of telco giants, like Verizon who are interested in their slice of the spectrum, and grizzled techies who see the opportunity to get more unlicensed spectrum.  Meanwhile, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the government agency that allocates spectrum, is concerned that it doesn’t have the resources, political capital, know-how, or clearance to go toe-to-toe with DOD, FAA, or the NOAA and demand greater efficiency.

So the question becomes how do you empower NTIA so that its efficiently assigning federal spectrum? A number of market and non-market recommendations arose.

• Kathleen Ham from T-Mobile called for market mechanisms like a fee for use, which would result in agencies “valuing” their spectrum.
• Gregory Rose, an economic consultant, argued that market mechanisms undervalue public goods and that NTIA needs more authority.
• Marc MacCarthy, a Georgetown professor, explained that shadow pricing might be sufficient to wake up agencies to inefficiencies.
• Kathleen Ham came back to emphasize that inefficiency is partially based on equipment: if an agency uses an old analog system, they’re going to be inefficient. We need a fund for upgrading these systems.

I’m a supporter of developing hybrid systems.  First, I think that Marc MacCarthy’s shadow pricing idea is great, although I think Gregory Rose is totally right that pricing estimates will undervalue the public good, , particularly if based on the market estimates. How do you value accurate weather data, or plane navigation data, etc.?  I think that market mechanisms are fine as long as government sets the price.  Fines should be based on the efficiency of spectrum use, not the amount of spectrum.  Fees could be allocated to government or agency specific accounts to raise money for upgrades.

Spectrum allocation is, thankfully, wonkey enough that these issues of market mechanisms and regulation aren’t politicized (yet?).  There are certainly lots of opportunities for bipartisan consensus and pulling together a number of good ideas.

(For a quick gander at the spectrum we’re talking about and who owns it see this nifty infographic. Note: the frequency allocations depicts the spectrum as of 2003.)

So this is probably pretty obvious, but I just made the connection that the 7 subway extension in New York City which extends from Times Square to the Javits Convention Center and Hudson Yards is just blocks away from the future end of the High Line.

I don’t know if my readers are familiar with the High Line, but its an abandoned elevated rail that goes up the western side of chelsea and the meatpacking district.  I’ve walked the first extension that extends to the Gallery District.  This is a great model for urban park development, it rewards pedestrian traffic, develops community through a public space, and if it wraps around Hudson Yards, will have easy metro accessibility.

Having walked the park this past Easter, I’d highly recommend that you check it out sooner. However, if you have to wait the 7 subway extension is scheduled to be done by 2013 and the high line should get within a couple blocks of there by the winter of 2010-2011. In infrastructure terms two years is like next week, hence my excitement.

Phase 1 was pulled off so elegantly, I just have to hope that the city government pulls off the development in Hudson Yards right.  Ideally, next time I go, I’d rather not take a cab to go for a walk.

You can support the park by checking out  the Friends of the High Line’s website.

I just listened to an NPR interview with Kevin Bankston a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation discussing ECPA, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  The short segment did a wonderful job identifying the  ridiculousness of existing government policy for accessing out online content.  ECPA, the principal law responsible for guiding government policy on electronic privacy was passed in 1986.  The Digital Due Process coalition (DDP), which includes in addition to EFF, Google, AOL, the ACLU and others.

• Type: Emails contents, online docs, private web 2.0 hosting.
• Presently: There’s a patchwork of laws that justify getting your content without a warrant
• Ideally: Search warrant issued based on probable cause.

Principal 2: Access to Mobile Location Data

• Type: Any mobile data
• Presently: Ambiguous legal framework, requiring either subpoena or a warrant
• Ideally: Search warrant  issued based on probable cause.

Principal 3:  Access to Transactional Data

• Type: Dialed number information, IP address, Internet port, email to and from,
• Presently: Court required to issue order if prosecutor says it is relevant to the case.
• Ideally: A judicial finding that law enforcement has offered specific and articulable facts demonstrating on  reasonable grounds that the information is relevant and material.

Principal 4: Access to Subscriber Identifying Data and Stored Transactional Information

• Type: Name, address, call or session records, length of service and type of service, and method of payment.
• Presently: Its relatively easy for law enforcement to get large data sets to “fish” for answers.
• Ideally: Identifiable information ie. phone number or IP address, subpoena sufficient unless the “government sought records about groups.

Principals 1 and 2, are those policies most in need of reform, as they’re concerned with the content of online communications and should be changes to clearly require a warrant.  Establishing the distinction between content, and identifiable or interaction data is important for developing a consistent policy.  This enables users to put more faith that their privacy is respected online, and provides the justice system with consistent reasonable policies to follow.

This blog will keep abreast of the DDP coalition, and hopefully legislation to reform the ECPA.

Washington DC has had SmartTrip, a contactless stored value smart card, in operation since 1999. It has practically become part of the DC identity.  In the past decade there has been an incredible amount of energy in making this technology standard across the country.  Transportation authorities, see real benefits in being able to measure customers in real time and apply distance or zone faring, and customers enjoy not having paper tickets crumple, and being able to fly through the turnstyle, or with some cards get online refills.

While traveling up to New York City recently, I noted the absence of a contactless smart card system.  I did some research this morning because I wanted to see what makes New York different than other cities.  I got a list of all the operational systems and ridership as discovered on Wikipedia and as reported by the American Public Transit Association’s Ridership Reports Statistics for the third quarter of 2009, and then I looked on their websites to see if they had implemented a smart card system yet.  Surprisingly, almost all of them have, Baltimore is testing something called the CharmCard now, and Cleavland bought fare machines with smart card compatibility.

Not surprisingly Staten Island Railway uses the same metro cards as the New York subway, and Tren Urbano uses the same technology (that information was hard to find).  New York is currently testing a smart card program on select lines, but the cost of implementing this program is just astounding, with an estimate of 300 million.  As you can see from ridership, New York is just on a completely different scale from any other rapid transit system in the United States.

While I would say its entirely worth it, that’s the cost of going big.  And at least for now those of us in Philadelphia, Chicago, LA, and DC, have something to hold over the heads of our transit obsessed friends in the big apple for the next year or two.

The America COMPETES Act was signed in August 2007 by President Bush.  As part of a number of “jobs” bills being considered by Congress, a Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act was passed by the house this past Friday, May 28th 2010.  In particular this bill increases funding for federal research agencies, and discuses STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) education.  Another critical component of the bill is nanotechnology, and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.  While I was happy to see that resources are specifically being directed towards studying the health and safety of nanotechnology, one key term I would have liked to see is Green Chemistry.

Green Chemistry could be described as the necessary principals to make chemistry safe and sustainable.  Commonly it’s described by 12 Principals written in the book “Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice” and posted at the EPA here, I’ve attached these 12 principals below.  In 2008, I was interning at the Center for Science Technology and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota.  While there I helped set up a large Green Chemistry conference, that brought together a number of academics, entrepreneurs, and politicians to talk about the need for and potential of Green Chemistry in the Minnesota economy.

A lot of the principals behind Green Chemistry, at least from a policy perspective, are issues of negative externality. Unless chemists are conscious of the consequences of excess materials and the difficulty or costs in reusing or disposing of them, they’ll focus less optimally on efficiency.  These principals should be discussed in relation to STEM education policy at least, actual money and research dollars I’m sure would also be welcome.

Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry

1. Prevention
   It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has been created.
2. Atom Economy
   Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the process into the final product.
3. Less Hazardous Chemical Syntheses
   Wherever practicable, synthetic methods should be designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment.
4. Designing Safer Chemicals
   Chemical products should be designed to effect their desired function while minimizing their toxicity.
5. Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries
   The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous when used.
6. Design for Energy Efficiency
   Energy requirements of chemical processes should be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. If possible, synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure.
7. Use of Renewable Feedstocks
   A raw material or feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting whenever technically and economically practicable.
8. Reduce Derivatives
   Unnecessary derivatization (use of blocking groups, protection/ deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be minimized or avoided if possible, because such steps require additional reagents and can generate waste.
9. Catalysis
   Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents.
10. Design for Degradation
    Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their function they break down into innocuous degradation products and do not persist in the environment.
11. Real-time analysis for Pollution Prevention
    Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-time, in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances.
12. Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention
    Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.

While not a scientist, I wanted to look at the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST, and see what the background of the members are.  PCAST was established in 2001 by executive order under George W Bush, it has a mandate to advise the president on science and technology policy.  Without a better understanding of this and other committees, the public and the media are ill prepared to hold the President accountable for using their advice.

As fair warning, I attempt to break peoples “background” into simplified identities. The 21 members of PCAST all have complex experiences, further I’m happy for individuals to check, or modify, my categories. You can access the excel file here.

When the members of this committee were first reported, the presence of Eric Shmidt of Google was lauded for bringing in individuals outside of academia.  5 of the 21 members of PCAST are from outside of academia as I defined it.  I defined those in academia as those currently or recently employed in higher education.

Of those in the private sector, I wanted to break things down further.  I was actually pleasantly surprised that professors made up the majority of PCAST.  I presume that Presidents and Deans of colleges based on the requirements of their jobs have less time than Professors to keep fully abreast of the latest scientific findings.  Beside the predominance of professors, four of the other professions had two members.  I was also interesting that Craig Mundle who works for Microsoft, was the sole individual involved in for-profit government relations.

The final thing I wanted to look at was Academic Field.  What was the ratio of biologists and physicists.  The results seem to say a lot and very little at the same time.  There were some surprises for me, like the presence of an economist Richard C. Levin.  Some of these categories are probably flexible.  For example where do you a professor of Physics and Chemistry like Ahmed Zewall?  Since he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, I based my decision on that.   Also while John P Holdren, teaches Environmental Policy, his PhD was in physics.  I made the decision to put him in his own category of Environmental policy, because presumably he is more familiar now with research in Environmental Policy than in physics.  With our small sample size of 21 this might look very different if we were to go by PhD as opposed to current field of study, but I’ll do that in a future blog post.

I’m actually not going to make my own conclusions from this, because I don’t think I have enough information.  However, depending on your scientific background a lot can be made of the emphasis in one way vs another.  I’m a little surprised that there are as many Physicists and those with a background in Medicine.  The key here is to remember that with NASA and NIH there are a number of other advisors that provide a background in one or the other perspective.  I will say though that the diversity of this committee might make it ideal for discussing STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education, but not the ideal committee to take on Swine Flu, or even Global Warming.

I read today on Read Write Web, that on May 25th 2010, the state of Louisiana passed a law increasing the jail time for a crime, if the crime was aided by “virtual, street level maps”.  While regular crimes like burglary will have an extra year of jail time added, crimes of terrorism will have an additional ten years added if “virtual maps” aided the crime.  These years will have to be served consecutively not concurrently with the “underlying offense”.  This bill apparently passed 89-0.

Internet, virtual, street-level map’ means any map or image that contains the picture or pictures of homes, buildings, or people that are taken and dispensed, electronically, over the Internet or by a computer network, where the picture can be accessed by entering the address of the home, building, or person.

While, I don’t want to make a claim about the need for more or less aggressive penal system, I think we should all agree that this bill is a joke.  This bill might as well be applied to cell phones, cameras, Microsoft word, or even a notepad, because all this bill does is punish criminals who prepare.  This is an excuse to increase the time that criminals serve that is entirely divorced from their actual crime.  Only because we live in a culture with a deep seated fear of the “Internets” does something like this pass.

I’d ask for Senator Adley who wrote the bill, to explain why using Google Street View, or Flickr is really deserving of an extra year of jail time.  We should be trying to get criminals to use these services.  If only criminals would check in on foursquare at the convenient stores they’re holding up.