U.S. Digital Deficiency Jeopardizes 'Super Power' Status

Children born in America this year will be the first true Digital Natives of the Information Age. They will grow up in a time when all of their telecommunications tools: video, voice and data are based completely upon digital technology. It is an interesting historical footnote, to be sure. But it made me wonder: What will their rights be as Digital Citizens of the United States? Does our public policy contemplate a future constrained by the agendas of big business or will it position America to truly prosper in the global information economy?

An average broadband connection in the United States is 1.5 Mbps down and 768 Kbps up -- about enough speed to watch a fairly low resolution streaming video or do some casual web surfing. Cable modems are faster and you can certainly purchase more connectivity, if you can afford it. But, on average, consumers are offered asymmetrical (faster download/slower upload) broadband connections and no one seems that unhappy about it. They should be.

A child born in Korea or Singapore this year will be a digital native of their respective countries. They will grow up in a time when all of their telecommunications tools: video, voice and data are based completely upon digital technology. And they are very likely to start their journey through the Internet with 100 Mpbs symmetrical broadband connection.

Let's see. American Digital Natives 1.5 Mpbs, other competing countries 100 Mpbs. You don't need to be a technologist or a mathematician to do this calculation. They have 100 of something we have 1.5 of. They can move information much faster than we can.

In practice, this is a real problem. Information = currency. This is well understood. If you have exclusive information, you can easily convert it to cash. As ever, the flow of information equates to economic success. So it logically follows that the faster one can move information, the more successful one is likely to be. From battlefield to Bloomberg terminal this is an immutable law of the doing of life. How long can America maintain its Super Power status in the Information Age? The simple answer is, only as long as its digital citizens have the ability to move information faster than any competitive entity in the global information economy.

America is used to being "the" Super Power. This term, once reserved for our military -- industrial complex, has been broadened, by common usage, to refer to all of our technological prowess. "American Technology" is widely regarded (by average American citizens) as the best in the world. Many would argue that we have already abdicated this role, but assuming we're still at or near the top -- how long can we stay there?

We need to understand that other countries around the world do not have legacy infrastructure owned by private companies. Our private enterprises, with private agendas are tasked with helping our Digital Citizens compete with foreign governments and their public agendas. Our side is thinking about corporate profits, their side is thinking about global competition in the Information Age.

On February 17, 2009 analog television will cease to exist. It will be replaced with digital television. To facilitate the switch, the government gave licensed broadcasters the rights to new "digital" airwaves and put their old "analog" airwaves up for auction. The big winners were America's two largest telecommunications companies, Verizon and AT&T. Although it sounds like business as usual (big telecommunications companies buying up digital spectrum) this is anything but business as usual.

The groundwork has now been laid for America's digital telecommunications future. Our access to bandwidth and our ability to move information around the Internet is now firmly in the hands of a very few organizations. What, if anything, should we do about it?

It is time to start a public policy debate on this issue. What are our rights as Digital Citizens of the United States? Are we entitled to high-speed wireless on par with other countries? Should we have the right to use the public airwaves to create private mesh networks? Will we get to use the "white space" in the television spectrum to create truly public, unlicensed applications? Will we, as a nation, have a public policy that allows America to compete with other digital superpowers or, will we become a country of digital have-nots, unable to compete in a larger world?

This is an extraordinarily complex issue and it is well beyond the capabilities of any one individual to think through. What I propose is a series of public policy debates. We'll bring together representatives from all areas of the telecommunications space and government and together, we'll draft a comprehensive policy recommendation that we can bring to the leadership.

We need to articulate a clear vision for our technological future and we need to start right now. You can help. To get involved, please click here and join the US Digital Citizenship mailing list. We are putting together a series of Digital Citizenship workshops and conferences at major trade shows. We would welcome your participation.

Shelly Palmer is Managing Director of Advanced Media Ventures Group LLC and the author of Television Disrupted: The Transition from Network to Networked TV (2006, Focal Press). Shelly is also President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, NY (the organization that bestows the coveted Emmy® Awards). He is the Vice-Chairman of the National Academy of Media Arts & Sciences an organization dedicated to education and leadership in the areas of technology, media and entertainment. Palmer also oversees the Advanced Media Technology Emmy® Awards which honors outstanding achievements in the science and technology of advanced media. You can read Shelly's blog here. Shelly can be reached at [e-mail]

Follow Shelly Palmer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@shelly_palmer

Comments

[lovethesinner]

People make fun of me when I say, "if Obama doesn't get the nomination, I'm moving out of the country," but you've explained my reason, here, very well.

As a musician, I've been watching the industry change almost overnight. What lies on the horizon is truly TRANSFORMATIONAL in my business. The ability to move sound and pictures on fiber-optic cable changes everything.

Buried in the personality contest this cycle, is this issue that Shelly rightly points out could throw us into a kind of "digital dark age." So, it caught my eye to see the following in Open Left's four reasons for endorsing Obama:

"First, many people have said that there are few policy differences between Obama and Clinton, but the truth is that their telecom policies could hardly be further apart from each other. Obama proposes exactly the sort of transformative, open telecommunications policy that we need to transform the media landscape in America, while Hillary Clinton's telecom proposals are nothing more than heinous corporate welfare. Without a transformed telecommunications landscape, we are going to have an extremely difficult time building a progressive America or passing any of our other legislation."

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4795

Obama-Webb '08

[njack]

I, too, have decided to move to France. (1) to get healthcare and (2) because I speak the language.

[newshawk14]

Years ago, I had this discussion with a very intelligent Republican conservative. He had been a
physiologist with the Harry Diamond Labs (military), about the idea that anything the government
does will be done wrong. He offered up the idea, that government should own the networks, and
allow anyone to do business over them. A prime example, would be the interstate highway system,
imagine what a disaster it would be, if split into myriad chunks, owned by private enterprise. The
same is true of the internet, the companies have no incentive to upgrade bandwidth, as long as
they have a monopoly. Let government own the basic network, and let service providers, have to
compete for your business

[azrix]

The Interstate highway system is a disaster anyway. For example, one of the large sources of liberal angst, the suburbs, wouldn't exist. They are a direct consequence of the "fast" commutes allowed by Interstates. Combined with silly laws about zoning and it's virtually impossible to get along without a car anywhere in the country, a few coastal urban areas excluded. They have also displaced a large amount of transport onto big trucks instead of much more energy efficient rail systems. Also, road construction would be much less expensive if it didn't need to support those same heavy trucks. So you have the rest of us taxpayers subsidizing a poor method of transport because of our Interstates. Not to mention the whole system of gas pumps, shipping gas, shipping cars around, manufacturing cars, as well as the financial burden on most everyone for the cars, the gas, the maintenance, and the taxes on it all. Yeah, those Interstates sure are good for the environment and your pocketbook. Sorry, the Interstate highway system is huge disaster for a number of reasons.

[miles120]

While I can't disagree with the disadvantages that you speak of, they aren't relevant to the analogy used. The fact is, we want to encourage the transfer of information, extension, and digital growth that would be caused by an open infrastructure. There wouldn't be the same types of environmental and social costs that are attributed to highways, because of the lack of incremental costs in moving network packets at faster speeds or further distances.

This is about effectiveness: we've spend the last three decades embracing the private sector's ability to penetrate a variety of markets. We've given them virtual monopolies, tax breaks, and many other sweetheart deals. What have we gotten in return? No choices and poor product. Who out there likes their cable company? Aren't you sick of having to buy an entire upgrade package just to get one channel? Despite the drawbacks of the highway system, there is no argument that much of the growth over the past 50 years can be attributed to it.

[HansB]

Because the US has put all its investment eggs in the military basket. Why, I don't know. It seems a funny choice for a country that doesn't have a single adversary on its continent.

[winoohno]

I could not agree with you more! We spend hundreds of billions of weapons but we have a crumbling infrastructure. If we are not training the best and the brightest, then we are not investing in our future.

Something interesting to think about: what about all those taxes we pay for phone, cable, internet service, etc.? Weren't they supposed to be used towards creating our telecommunications infrastructure? Wasn't that a Clinton accomplishment back in the mid-90's... some big Act which is a sham like many others I'm sure...

[FreedomCorpse]

For all the so called information age offers, we don't know jack about China except disinfected information.

[Justtellthetruth]

Sure, those other countries are kicking our butt on this, but hey, we have the somewhat free market here to make up for any deficiencies. We have internet infrstructure, controlled by near monopolies, that grow and respond at a snails pace, and for every tiny incremental step our consumers are charged new and unbelievably high fees.

We should NEVER have sold those old TV frequencies. We should RENT them to the interested parties, and then ALLOW them the right to build infrastructure or build it ourselves, and upgrade it CONSTANTLY. rest assured, they will progress at a snails pace as well, and we will again be charged HUGE NEW FEES for every tiny, incremental step, steps that Japan or europe will have taken a decade earlier.

[appleknocker]

No more Superpower? What a shame!

[JScott]

Yeah and this bit about dithtering over who's gonna make the money be the tollbooth and who's gonna nickel and dime end users is what this country is doing, in other countries their probably for the most part is no debate they want the higher speed internet access for their citizens because it's the thing to do to stay competitive, the US used to be that way but now it's all about the MONEY (sadly).

[maggiemae656]

Yet another example of the negatives involved with big corps...monopolies not only throw prices out of whack, but also take away the creativity and ingenuity that compes with competition. How sad that the conglomerates and their lobbyists are able to manipulate Congress so easily.

[bogananda666]

The USA is the best, premier if you will, 3RD WORLD COUNTRY IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.What do we expect from a 3RD WORLD COUNTRY LIKE THE USA, we are the best of what we are, a 3rd world country.

[Cuneo]

Excellent article, every explanation of this is so important. The average citizen is completely unaware of it. The oligarchy of the past 7 years extends in many ways that the people don't know. Universal broadband should be touted alongside universal healthcare, and our complete backwardness in all indices of what will be important in the 21st century and/or prosperous life in general compared to the rest of the industrialized world ought to be a measure of the unwillingness of the Republican party to do anything to foster American progress other than fleece the public and deposit the proceeds in offshore accounts.

[cognate]

Quit the scare tactics Mr. Palmer. Tell us what's in it for the established media companies --that you work for-- and you'll gain some credibility.

Google wants to use part of the spectrum in question for very inexpensive cellphones and Blackberry alternatives. I for one could use cheaper phone and mobile internet access.

[NoMoreDrama]

Control of Public Spectrum. You want access to information alternatives, you pay more. Freedom isn't free, there's a hefty fuckin fee.

I think you missed the main point of the article.

[cognate]

What? You think there's a free lunch waiting in there somewhere ?

[SCG]

another sign of our decline.

Production = Currency

[FreedomCorpse]

The production is in China, that's why they have growth and jobs and the yen is getting stronger.

[SCG]

Bingo!

[procrustes]

Oh, Shelly! That's not even the half of it. Europe, those nasty, nasty socialists, have physical and social infrastructure. People live with $8/gal gasolene because they have a wonderful public transport system, electrical grid to support it, and social safety nets to keep people free from fear. If there were another major fuel shortage--say we bomb Iran and they block the straits--people in Europe can still get to work in relative comfort and ontine. The downside is that they'd be forced to save money because public transport is cheaper. Imagine the effects a major fuel blockage will have on us. As I said, broadband isn't even half of how far behind we've fallen.

[Thermodynamics]

Cell phone service is much cheaper in Europe. it is a viable alternative to land lines. They also have more choices about internet plans and pay less for that.

[Citizen54]

Thanks for raising this issue. It's not so much what we are entitled to but what the country needs to thrive financially and technologically. But unfortunately, we are no longer a forward-looking country. We are content to become a third-world nation, a banana republic, a two-bit empire -- but as long as our TV system is reliable, and American Idol or NFL or Oprah is on when the schedule says it will be, then what -- us worry?
I had the experience of being out in the country in China several years ago. You could see work going on near the side of the road. They were laying fiber-optic lines to provide high-speed network access to rural areas. They're a dictatorship, but they're looking toward the future.

[SevenSteps2Kevin]

Shelly, excellent blog entry. As joebaggadonuts said, this is a huge competitive problem for the US, one that is not so visible right now, but will increasingly manifest itself in the future. Information does indeed, directly equal money. The reins of the internet are stuck in the hands of corporations and government regulations enforced by the very corporations that seek to control and monetize this arena. This is truly and tragedy- why don't we have massively public wi-max networks covering every square inch of our urban centers, much less our entire country. There is so much content on the internet that could be used for the betterment of our people if only we could look up and recognize the absolute potential for information transmission available. Not only that, but we could revolutionize and do away with cable provides and phone companies! But those companies are the ones that control the bandwidth as well as the government commissions that oversee the distribution of that bandwidth! We should do away with these bastard moneychangers and take a hard look at universal public internet access. Done correctly, how many services could we digitize? How much paper use could we eliminate? How many people could self-educate with this kind of initiative. Thanks Shelly for bringing to light this crucial oversight by the US Gov't that threatens the well-being of its very own future!

[Sumocat]

Those are grim figures, and that's only comparing broadband to broadband. A significant chunk of our country still relies on dial-up (including folks who live in Northern VA, around AOL headquarters), while other countries are on their way or already done with phasing it out. If you compared average speed of overall Internet connectivity, I suspect we'd rank much lower.