Response to bolster the argument made in the last post... US high-speed Internet is slow Submitted by Canada IFP on Sun, 2007-05-20 16:14. The average broadband download speed in the US is only 1.9 megabits per second, compared to 61 Mbps in Japan, 45 Mbps in South Korea, 18 Mbps in Sweden, 17 Mpbs in France, and 7 Mbps in Canada, according to the Communication Workers of America. CWA President Larry Cohen testified before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, in support of a discussion draft of the Broadband Census of America Act. "Good data is the foundation of good policy," Cohen said. "We desperately need a national Internet policy to reverse the fact that our nation – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen to 16th in the world in broadband adoption." "Equally disturbing, Americans pay more for slower connection speeds than people in many other countries," he added. According to statistics provided by CWA 80 percent of households in Japan can connect to a fiber network at a speed of 100 megabits per second. This is 30 times the average speed of a US cable modem or DSL connection, at roughly the same cost. Cohen pointed out that the average upload speed was in the US was only 371 kilobits per second, not nearly enough to send quality medical information over the Internet. "Speed Matters on the Internet", Cohen emphasized. "It determines what is possible; whether we will have the 21st century networks we need to grow jobs and our economy, and whether we will be able to support innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety, and public services to improve our lives and communities. High speed Internet could even help address the global warming crisis by allowing people to get things done without getting into their car." http://pressesc.com/01179677598_us_internet_slow
Agree. Plus Gates in that position would be *severely* damaging to Linux and the open source movement, especially considering how much the government relies on open source technology today. And his track record with Windows is embarrassing, to say the least. I like Schmidt, except that -- I'm surprised he is described as less visionary and more pragmatic (i.e. more of a manager than a leader). Also I would have to seriously consider placing an order for a tinfoil hat (Google's massive database of internet user info/behavior + government bureaucracy = hello big brother for real).
We "had" an OTA. The OTA closed in the mid 90s but its death started when the Reagan administration started to defund the agency. Also the OTA reported to Congress and its committees, this new position would seemingly report to the president. It would be pretty similar and its something that shouldnt have been closed down in the first place.
A similar argument for a single entity to manage things was made in 2002 leading to the Dept. of Homeland security. Unfortunately the Dept. of Homeland Security instead of streamlining things has led to more inefficiencies and problems such as during Katrina when there was confusion about who does what.
I'm not asking for consolidation of all entities related to technology. The DHS was an example of terrible bureaucracy. They combined everything into one This position I assume is like a cabinet member, its more consultation than anything else. It's someone who's job is to monitor what we're doing with money allocated to technology issues and make recommendations on what we should do. It's about having someone dedicated to the issue rather than our approach of half-assing everything and running around with our heads cut off.
Unlike the conservatives I believe that government is important and can do well some very important things that the market and profit driven companies can never do. That being said, having a technology czar or whatever is not a big deal. Please no cabinet level office.
Maybe that's part of the problem. But by far the largest part of the problem is not the government, it's the telco's who defrauded the american taxpayer out of 200 billion dollars.
