| CTO? Who hold that job now? Must be a phantom postition invented by Business Week. |
|
| Sorry. I'm an Obama supporter and I never heard of this. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by rdmiller:Sorry. I'm an Obama supporter and I never heard of this. Like most government, there's no real need for a CTO. People and companies should be free to innovate and create new technologies as they see fit.
--
"At the moment of conception." |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by pnh102:People and companies should be free to innovate and create new technologies as they see fit. Which no would-be broadband provider seems willing to do unless they can tie up the users into their own walled garden (cable, copper, fiber, or wireless).
This may be the time. When the horseless carriage became popular, the government started pouring pavement. Everyone benefited. It can be envisioned as a serious public project.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
2 edits | reply to rdmiller
said by rdmiller:Sorry. I'm an Obama supporter and I never heard of this. Found here on his web site:
»www.barackobama.com/issues/techn···ications
Bring Government into the 21st Century: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will use technology to reform government and improve the exchange of information between the federal government and citizens while ensuring the security of our networks. Obama and Biden believe in the American people and in their intelligence, expertise, and ability and willingness to give and to give back to make government work better. Obama will appoint the nation's first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices. But I couldn't find anything on his web site that mentions the $50 billion venture capital fund mentioned in the BusinessWeek article. The closest I could find was this:
Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs: This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. The Obama-Biden relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school repair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut. And this mentions broadband but with no specific funding amount mentioned:
Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we can get broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives. --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Good find!
The article you quoted seems to have an internal government focus to the CTO rather than an infrastructure one.
Hmmm! |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to funchords
said by funchords:Which nobody seems willing to do unless they can tie up the users into their own walled garden (cable, copper, fiber, or wireless). And why is this bad? The buying public is perfectly capable of deciding which one of these technologies merits purchase or not. The technologies which the public does not find useful will fall by the wayside and the technologies which were useful became more prominent. This happened without the government getting involved.
said by funchords:This may be the time. When the horseless carriage became popular, the government started pouring pavement. Everyone benefited. It can be envisioned as a serious public project. I don't think roads are a valid comparison. The Interstate Highway system was built because of concerns over wartime defense capabilities in this country. It was not possible for the military to move across this country easily until the Interstate Highway system came into existence. Roads today are funded primarily by voluntarily contributed user fees collected in the form of tolls, vehicle registration fees and gas and other excise taxes.
Residential internet, on the other hand, became widely available to most people in the USA without the need for public involvement and private companies continue to expand investment into profitable markets. There's no need for the government to tell private companies where they need to invest their money.
--
"At the moment of conception." |
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:Good find! The article you quoted seems to have an internal government focus to the CTO rather than an infrastructure one. Hmmm! Maybe BusinessWeek got some of the details wrong. |
|
|
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Either that or like a lot of other things in this "catch-a-falling-knife" economy -- the original purpose morphed. |
|
 DanTrailer Park SupervisorPremium
join:2002-12-17
Eh?
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to pnh102
Sure theres good reason.
Just like roads, having the government pay for a national network, would allow everyone access to everywhere, allowing for more education, innovation and creation. That sounds pretty similar to the real benefits of roads. |
|
 tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by funchords:This may be the time. When the horseless carriage became popular, the government started pouring pavement. Everyone benefited. It can be envisioned as a serious public project. The ARPANET system was built to improve data communication capabilities in this country and worldwide. It was not possible for the military to move data packets across this country easily until the ARPANET system came into existence. The Internet today is based in part on the technology and development of the US DoD's ARPA. Residential internet, on the other hand, became widely available to most people in the USA without the need for public involvement and private companies continue to expand--at a glacial pace--investment into profitable markets usually when guaranteed near monopolies.
--
"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand."
--L. van Pelt |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | [deleted-quoting malfunction] |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Residential internet, on the other hand, became widely available to most people in the USA without the need for public involvement and private companies continue to expand investment into profitable markets. There's no need for the government to tell private companies where they need to invest their money. Who is "most people?" Where was the expanding investment during this past year? How do we get broadband to the places where it's not profitable enough?
The folks in Richy Falls, East Virginia all seem to have it. The folks in Little Swamp, Arkissippi all seem to be conveniently too far away from a CO.
I am literally sitting 75 meters from 3 fiber lines owned by TWT, ELI, and VZ (according to the paint). Yet, I can't get better than DSL.
Residential Internet was (and is) available because of the monopoly phone company and the government decision that everyone ought to have access to it. Dial-up is alive and kicking and it's what fostered demand for broadband.
There was plenty of public involvement in making telephone available to everyone. Therefore, there was plenty of public involvement in making the Internet available to everyone. Therefore, there can be plenty of public involvement in making the broadband available to everyone.
I hate it, but it's true and it is a more realistic idea than simply proclaiming that we have competition and we would allow 14 different companies to tear up the streets ever few months and plant vaults and cabinets on every corner.
I'm open to other views, but they have to mean that affordable broadband access continues to reach out to new people, not simply provides second choices to rich people.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
4 edits | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:The buying public is perfectly capable of deciding which one of these technologies merits purchase or not. The same could be said for the stock market. Why do we have the SEC set artificial standards which the so-called 'free' market won't yield? (When individuals are capable of making their own "choices").
Or, banking regulations which do the same thing?.
Why have corporate charters created by state legislatures? (a legal, yet fictional "person" to stand as the fall guy for officers and investors.).
We've already accepted the idea that society can create an infrastructure which improves market outcomes (from building codes and zoning laws, to food & drug quality regulation).
I doubt you'd urge abandoning the things I've mentioned. Probably because you like being attached to those societal nipples. Or, because you know how unpopular such a position would be (placing you in the irrelevant fringe).
Mark |
|
