Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani recently fumbled answering one of the dumbest questions asked since "boxers or briefs?" Campaigning in Alabama, he was asked, "What is the price of a gallon of milk?" He was off by a buck or two, thus failing a tiresome common-citizen test. But far more important questions need to be posed. Let's start with asking our future leaders about how affordable PCs, broadband Internet connectivity, and other information technologies are transforming the lives of every American.The standard for poli-technical cluelessness was set last year by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). In a speech opposing Net neutrality, he infamously said, "The Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes." Now, our senators don't need to be regular Slashdot contributors. Net neutrality is a fairly complex issue, and, as metaphors go, there are worse comparisons than a "series of tubes." Still, Senator Stevens was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which controls telecom regulation. He's regulating an industry he simply doesn't understand. We have to demand better.
Today's campaign managers know how to use technology to get their candidates elected. What steps do they take in order to do so? Find out after the jump.
For example, no candidate's campaign is complete without a MySpace page, YouTube channel, and a Web site that accepts donations. A few campaigns are even trying to ride the Web 2.0 bandwagon to Washington. John Edwards was in on the ground floor with Twitter, beaming riveting campaign updates ("Looking forward to our first 'Small Change for Big Change' event at San Jose State University tonight at 5 p.m.") to 3,000 online friends.
Technologically savvy campaigns are one thing, but we also need candidates who themselves have a basic understanding of how this stuff works. We need to elect the first tech president. The Personal Democracy Forum (PDF) is leading the charge with a six-point technical agenda it is hoping the presidential candidates will support. If a candidate disagrees with part of it, I want to know why.
Declare the Internet a public good. This means treating Internet access the same way we do water, electricity, highways, and public education. The government would have an obligation to enable low-cost universal access.
Commit to providing affordable high-speed wireless Internet access nationwide. Protect and expand unlicensed spectrum for public use. The PDF suggests spending $20 billion on an Internet Innovation and Investment Fund that would guarantee and spur development of a wireless broadband blanket and make sure the Net reaches every segment of the population.
Declare a Net neutrality standard. This would prevent ISPs from discriminating among content based on origin, application, or type. And with no tiered service pricing, big corporations couldn't buy their way into the fast lane, leaving smaller firms and individuals behind.
Make "Every Child Connected" our goal. If major corporations are able to increase the productivity of their workers by equipping them with PCs, cell phones, and Internet connections, we owe it to our children to offer the same infrastructure in schools.
Commit to building a connected democracy. Local and national government proceedings should be broadcast on the Internet so anyone can hear them anytime.
Create a National Tech Corps. This group would respond to emergencies by reestablishing communications, networks, and databases, and providing tech support for relief and recovery efforts.
There is more than a fair amount of idealism in these six requirements. Efforts to wire our schools, have been under way for years. And $20 billion to build a public wireless broadband network seems like a pipe dream (Tube dream?). Still, the candidates' views on these issues are more important to our nation's future than the price of milk.
Here at PC Magazine, we want to do our part to educate our future leaders about the 21st century. Therefore, our circulation department has added each candidate to our comp subscriber list.
by Dan Costa
Stumble
Digg
del.icio.us
Slashdot
July 31, 2007 7:36 AM
Dan,
The idea of making the internet available to everyone is a great one, and combined with this so-called $100 laptop initiative that they are supposedly trying to push forward, it would be a FANTASTIC way to get everyone, especially our children, on the internet. However, one of the components that I don't hear anything about is the maintenance of the PCs and laptops that are going to get everyone including our children on the internet. Even if the machines themselves only cost $100, what is it going to cost to maintain these machines? Are we also talking about teaching these same people how to care for them, and their own personal property in general? I have been the "computer guy" in my family for over two decades, and I have GIVEN other family members computers along with software, only to hear "we lost some pieces when we moved", "so and so came over with their child and spilled food and drink on it", "this person put a password on it and we can't get back on it, again" (Ok, I could disable the password feature, but it only delays the inevitable), "we lost the CDs". What will then happen is that the streets and the landfills will begin to fill up with these non-cared for PCs because they are not going to be fixed, and they are not going to be disposed of properly.
Until you can teach people to care for themselves and their possessions, the first geek president will not be able to put the internet in every home in America.
Investing the "Connected America" into libraries and providing the access that way, is a much more feasible way of getting our children in a more controlled environment, and we may even be able to trick them in to picking up a book while they are there. Can you imagining a functional AND computer literate America? Our local newspaper runs a piece on a foreign country in every edition of the Sunday paper. These week the piece was on Cuba. You can talk about Castro all you want, but Cuba has a 99.8% literacy rate. What is that percentage for the US? Every discussion about computer literacy should involve a functional literacy component. The benefits of a functionally literate US far outweigh the costs. Then we can talk about putting every child on the Internet.
Regards,
Kevin
August 7, 2007 3:28 PM
The literacy rate for the US is 99.9%. Certainly there is clustering and some areas must be addressed, but I think the fact diffuses Kevin's point a bit.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0858751.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
August 7, 2007 4:14 PM
Personally, I think it's more relevant to back a candidate who will create a foundation towards more responsible and sustainable energy use than computer use.
Equal public access to the Internet would also be a good thing however I doubt we need the government mandating lower prices on computer equipment. I agree with the earlier poster that without an adequate support structure, those $100 laptops will end up littering the streets within 5 years. Tax credits for responsible purchases make more sense to me.
Candidates that can present more substance than sound bite solutions to get themselves elected will get more of my attention than the talking head politicians of the past couple of decades.
I want to see more responsible use of the money I'm already giving to the government rather than encouraging new reasons for them to take more.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
August 8, 2007 5:06 PM
"Create a National Tech Corps. This group would respond to emergencies by reestablishing communications, networks, and databases, and providing tech support for relief and recovery efforts."
Agenda item six is a comparison of apples and oranges. The means of reestablishing communications already exists. It comes in two varieties: the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service and the Amateur Radio Emergency Service.
The most important consideration post disaster is NOT restoring infrastructure. It is saving lives and ensuring that first responders and those affected have a means of communicating with others outside of the disaster area.
Emergency communicators are quite experienced in establishing not only voice communications, but also data communication -- all wireless. Any information contained in a database would likely be mirrored or backed-up off-site and out of harms way. At the very least it could be restored to functionality at a location external to the area of catastrophe.
This agenda item in particular is specious and its advocacy shows little in the way of research on the part of the Public Democracy Forum.
August 13, 2007 8:36 AM
Mr. Costa, are you kidding?
Declaring the Internet a public good would be the fastest way to make accessing it a royal pain in the butt. Right now, we have many affordable options for high speed Internet access. If we were to mandate it to make it "accessible to all", we'd only succeed in driving up the costs and creating worse service. Would you honestly want the same government that manages the line at the DMV controlling your connection to the net?
If we look at some of the same industries that the government controls, we could look into the future of a government controlled monopoly.
For example, let's look at Mr. Costa's example of water service -
What happens if you have a complaint? Does it get handled in a timely manner? What happens if the cost goes up? What if you're really upset? Can you change water providers?
How many of you here have watering restrictions? My town doesn't allow watering between 8am - 7pm and only allows watering on odd/even days and I'm in Minnesota, "Land of 10,000 Lakes". I can see the same happening with Internet usage. "We only have limited bandwidth, so no gaming between 8am - 5pm M-F to allow good performance for our VPN customers." Perhaps they outlaw peer-to-peer file sharing as a public nuisance because of the bandwidth requirements. When government controls something the costs inevitably rise or the commodity gets rationed. It's foolish to think that Internet service would be any other way.
Mr. Costa threw in comparisons to government run Public Schools and transportation. Considering the government's abysmal record on these - can we seriously entertain the idea of them running this as well?
No, the only real solution that government can and should entertain is helping to keep the environment fertile for competition and growth. That means helping to ensure jobs are plentiful and economic growth continues. No government program (no matter the program) ever helped the poor to advance as well as good economic growth. In fact, the Wall Street Journal just wrote an article supporting that:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118670972878093865.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
We've all complained about the government's interference in our lives before (as in the DMCA). I can't imagine inviting them in any further. If we do so, we'll deserve the inevitable shortages, bad service, and slow advancement in technology.
August 17, 2007 11:17 PM
But Robert, your missing the point. If the government could control the internet and our access to it, then they could control the information. That would be a wonderful thing. It would be the first step in the ladder from silencing drudge and others on this medium in the vast right wing conspiracy.