Transformative Proposals from Obama (+)
by: Matt Stoller
Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:29:51 AM EST
Today, Obama is throwing down the gauntlet on a internet freedom, telecom lobbyists, and on opening up government in general to the public. It's some genuinely radical stuff, and it includes the use of blogs, wikis, and openness in government hearings. Significantly, Larry Lessig has endorsed Obama's platform.
Specifically, Obama wants the public to be able to comment on the White House Web site for five days before legislation is signed.
Several well-known local figures are expected to announce their support for Obama's plan, including two former FCC chairmen under President Clinton: Stanford University legal expert Larry Lessig and John Roos, chief executive of Palo Alto law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
Roos, one of Obama's top fundraisers, said Silicon Valley start-ups will be encouraged by Obama's call this month for a clean technology venture capital fund backed by a whopping $50 billion in federal money over five years.
In the plan, Obama also calls for more aggressive government support of broadband access. Specifically, he says subsidies for phone carriers should be given only to those offering both regular phone service and Internet broadband to rural areas. To date, carriers offering merely phone service have been able to claim subsidies from the so-called Universal Service Fund, giving them little incentive to roll out out broadband.
Obama also calls for reviewing the decision by the Federal Communications Commission to open the wireless spectrum for competition. He thinks the FCC may not have gone far enough with its recent ruling, according to campaign managers who asked not to be named. He wants to conduct a multiyear review but is leaning toward pushing for the opening of some spectrum on the 700 MHz band so third parties can lease it on a wholesale basis.
This is to ensure that the winners of a pending auction for the spectrum - expected to be large phone carriers like Verizon - don't just sit on the spectrum and not use it. Some fear they may do that to block others from competing with them.
Obama's proposals are supported by Google, which is expected to bid on the wireless spectrum.
The candidate also is in favor of network neutrality, a policy that would prevent Internet service providers from charging companies like Google extra to ensure the speedy transfer of data over the Internet.
It's a little difficult to discuss just how significant these proposals are, since we don't have a great frame of reference. Take the Universal Service Fund, and his plan to move the money that is currently subsidizing rural phone service and ensuring that broadband is subsidized as well. High speed broadband is a core tool for citizens to engage politically; it's not an accident that Color of Change emerged in 2006-2007, after massive growth in broadband to African-Americans. Building this network out, as Obama is putting forward, and opening up government could create organizing opportunities the likes of which we haven't dreamed. Imagine the innovative spirit of Silicon Valley combined with the power of government and the movement building organizing capacity of the netroots, and that's a start. Of course, what's possible is not necessarily what will happen, and it's all in the execution, but this is reaching for something bold.
And then of course there is spectrum and net neutrality. Both Edwards and Obama have made it clear they will break the power of the wireless gatekeepers, the telecom lobbyists who gut our laws, and the Comcast traffic shaping tyrants. Clinton, though, has been a noted absence in the debate about spectrum, mumbling about it incoherently at Yearlykos, and her plan for broadband was written by the telcos and doesn't include net neutrality. She still hasn't come out clearly on retroactive immunity, as her campaign's ties to telecom lobbyists are not trivial, and it looks from her possible FCC choices that her administration would be a continuation of the Clinton-Bush years of media and telecom deregulation.
Rest of article is here.
I don't really understand all of it, but the key phrase for me was net neutrality, something that I fought for last year when the House was in danger of giving it up. The openness in government and investment in technology can't be anything but good for the country, since it is the future, business-wise. I think these are all positive moves by Obama, and further distinguishing himself from Clinton.
UPDATE: Entire Platform Posted on Obama's Site
6 comments:
Your "rest of the article" link seems to go to the wrong article.
thanks for the heads up about the link. I've corrected it.
[quote]Roos, one of Obama's top fundraisers, said Silicon Valley start-ups will be encouraged by Obama's call this month for a clean technology venture capital fund backed by a whopping $50 billion in federal money over five years.[/quote]
Question - with the BILLIONS that have been invested into technology startups by VENTURE CAPITALISTS and traditional financial markets.......why do YOU believe that there is a need for the GOVERNMENT to set up a $50 billion fund? (Please no - "This represents 2 months of Iraq spending)
What happens if and when this venture FAILS and the tax payer's money has evaporated?
[quote]In the plan, Obama also calls for more aggressive government support of broadband access. Specifically, he says subsidies for phone carriers should be given only to those offering both regular phone service and Internet broadband to rural areas. To date, carriers offering merely phone service have been able to claim subsidies from the so-called Universal Service Fund, giving them little incentive to roll out out broadband.[/quote]
(Don't pay attention to me - I have been working for or consulting with evil, greedy telecom companies for more than 10 years thus I have no credibility. The outside "environmentalist" knows more about the industry for I am tainted via my relationship)....but......When Verizon Business spends $24 BILLION to build out its fiber to the home initiative called Fios for some reason those people who see "Internet access as a RIGHT" can only point to JAPAN and STILL claim "the USA is behind in providing high speed Internet access".
WITH MY OWN EYES I see the GREAT EXPENSE and complexity in building out these networks. Some people are CLUELESS with respect to the financial realities and the need for RETURN ON INVESTMENT by calculating HOW MANY CUSTOMERS will be serviced by this $150,000 switch that I have to buy to extend access into this particular community. If the box has a 5 year lifespan and you are only recouping $100,000 back during this time interval....keep it up and you'll be out of business.
The solution for rural areas IS NOT more government regulation. WiMAX promises to address the problem of coverage for LOW DENSITY areas. Instead of having to run long cable runs in sparsely populated areas wireless is a more rational solution for broad coverage.......just as it is being deployed in African nations who don't have a strong wireline infrastructure.
But still I ask you......WHICH POLITICIAN is going to step up to the plate after Verizon and AT&T have built out their new high speed networks, having spent in total over $70 billion only to have a new WIRELESS UPSTART come into the highly concentrated cities (the low hanging fruit) and take away their choice customers?
They are GREEDY COMPANIES, they can handle it you might say. The years after the Internet bubble were a BLOODBATH for the telecom industry. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people lost their jobs when the market prices destabilized. Failing to have the proper COMPETITIVE environment means that in the long run firms and individuals will STOP investing money into these long term, fixed capital projects which are "old technology" even before the build out is complete.
There will ALWAYS be a need for financial returns. In attempting to AVOID THIS you will crash and burn as so many MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WiFi projects have in the past 6 months after being introduced with great fanfare.
Yes - free/low cost access sounds good. WHO is going to pay for the constant equipment upgrades and the technicians to keep it going?
I think this would be an awesome idea. However, all of this openness would probably bother the elite in Washington DC who are not used to dealing with the public. They are used to dealing with rich lobbyists who represent corporations. Obama wants to get back to the original concept of the White House and the Congress being "the People's House".
I think he would probably get a lot of opposition (from within the establishment).
BTW... did you receive my email regarding blogging & the NPR opportunity???? Shall I pass on your contact info?
I think your e-mail may have me blocked, lol. Either that or the internet is eating my e-mails for some reason.
If you did not get it... I will try to send from another email account.
[quote]They are used to dealing with rich lobbyists who represent corporations.[/quote]
So Angry, in your view the UNION INTERESTS who lean on Congress are "for the people"????
What about "Move On.org"? Are they "for the people" unlike the corporate lobbyists?
Republican Platform:
Vote for us if you want to be robbed blind.
Democratic Platform:
Vote for us if you would rather die.
Independent platform:
To Hell with it all.
Post a Comment