Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

smithee — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:23:35 -0000

The only people who would oppose this are Comcast and other companies who stand to lose from universal broadband.

It's time we caught up with the rest of the civilized world.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mannning — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:43:48 -0000

Dear Billyboy

Why of course there are stovepipes! 2Dolt! Whoever said there weren't? But to add another layer on top of the stovepipes and guess what? This chokes them off, and no smoke gets through. What one needs to do is to foster responsibility from the bottom up, and reward those who integrate, fuse, and cooperate, not play god of the pipe. The President already has an NSF, which is a subdepartment. I suppose you want to subordinate them to your National Technology Advisor. You are simply adding yet another layer and another checkpoint to the pot. Do more with less, why don't you? Find the right management approaches to get more out of what is there, promote cross-Department and Agency teamwork, and appoint incisive managers. Shuffle things around internally, not add to the top.

Security is entirely another matter, simply because it deals with national survival threats on a potentially very, very short time constant, whereas technology in general poses little short term threat to the nation that is not already covered by one or more agencies with sufficient expertise and clout. Thus there is far more time available to sort out problems in the technology sphere, and plentiful resources for the President and his staff to use to get advice and council. If you have ever been to a Presidential staff meeting, you should know that adding yet another player to that table is add an exponential factor to the cacophony already there. The issues you are groaning about should be handled by the Chief of Staff directing the right palyers to staff the problems and report back.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

dominigan — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:28:16 -0000

Please tell me you're joking about public schooling! Most of my teachers are relatives, and yet (after a few years in public school), our kids asked to be home schooled.... and we agreed. Even my mom, who is a third grade teacher, finally agreed that was the best thing we could have done for them.

And for your other two examples...

Most highway projects run WAY over budget and are severely mismanaged. Fire... its better, although I do wonder why we keep getting hit with ever increasing votes to increase funding when our neighborhood hasn't expanded...

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:48:10 -0000

This was similar to my situation in South Florida. We had line of site wireless Internet access for my office for about the price of a regular broadband connection, and the speed of a T3.

The connection *never* went down, through every hurricane that hit during the time we were there (something like seven or so?).

The technology is there, and I think in many places, we're starting to see the return of the mom-and-pop ISP like this. Of course, if the US Gov't provides a susbsidized version, this eliminates the ability for private business to compete... and if the US Gov't gives more subsidies to the big boys, it makes it even harder for small business to pose a threat.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:43:39 -0000

Moonage: I think this quote from you says it all: "Hackers, spammers, porn, hate crimes, pirating, child molestors and uncolntrolled discussion boards lend to a threat against our society that is not being addressed in any organized fashion."

The fact that you think these issues bear a serious threat to society shows me that you've got a real superficial understanding of what these problems are. Some of these "issues" aren't even illegal activities (and are covered by the first amendment), some of these aren't crimes that relate to technology at all, and the none are systemic threats to the fabric of society!

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

JohnFLob — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:43:38 -0000

I found this article and the discussion in the comments quite interesting. Interesting, because I live in a rural area approximately 30 miles south of Raleigh NC. None of the cable telecommunication companies provide service in my area. None of the local telephone companies can provide DSL type service.

However, in spite of these 'stone walls' I have had high-speed Internet access, typically at T1 levels or higher, for nearly two years. My ISP utilizes a series of microwave links to provide this high speed access. The only physical limitation is that users need line of sight access to the ISP's towers. Failures are very rare.

This would seem to substantiate the arguments to keep the Federal government out of the picture. A local business has solved the problem for me and my neighbors without government help.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:36:09 -0000

No, Obsydian. People bash me because they're unable to come up with legitimate gripes, like you seem unable to do, and simply want to express the anger they feel when confronted with a well reasoned disagreement.

More to the point of your comment, Barack Obama and Businessweek both have made this more about national broadband than they've made it about "R&D and discourse" and such.

Let me quote myself: "Iâ€™m uncertain if thatâ€™s simply the spin that BusinessWeek is putting on the story, or if thatâ€™s the actual intention of Obamaâ€™s promised cabinet appointment. Assuming that itâ€™s not for broadband, for a moment, I repeat my original query as to why weâ€™d need a CTO in the first place, since even the best qualified individuals for defining the position canâ€™t seem to do so...."

If you read the article, you'd know that. It's much easier to hurl ad hominem, so I'll let you continue to do that. Your turn!

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:31:12 -0000

Stupid comment.

Why are we always meeting like this, Bill? You write trollish comments, and I'm stuck making you look silly.

Here's the problem with your assumption - and I verified this by combing through all existing Obama policy statements on the topic last night - Obama doesn't have a clue what a CTO does. The position he describes on his website sounds more like a national SysAdmin: "The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks..."

Besides, you're not exactly a newb troll around the hallowed halls of Mashable. You already know my position on Network Neutrality legislation. If not, I'll give you some links so you can go troll those articles, too.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Bill C — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:41:36 -0000

Manning - you're a dolt. The Army has many platoons, companies, battalions, brigades, divisions, and corps. The Army also has a secretary and a chief of staff. By your logic, there's no reason to have a cabinet level position advising the president on how to implement sound national security policy and how to make the best use of the Army - it's just more guvmint! More guvmint BAD! Ditto for intel - we already have the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, etc. Why do we need a NIA? Because of stovepipes, and everyone is running around doing their own thing. Money is wasted, critical information falls through the cracks, and it's hard for the electorate to track and hold a singular agency accountable for an intel phuk up. Now when something goes bad we can blame the admin, and the admin will get to exercise more control over how policy is implemented at the agency level.

With technology, we've already been down this road at the state level. Michigan was the first state to centralize IT and appoint a state level CIO and CTO. With support from their governor they centralized IT, cut budgetary fat and eliminated unnecessary duplication (consolidation of data centers, shared services). Centralization does wonders for asset management, budget control, and policy implementation. All of the tech advisory bodies you mentioned will still have a place, aren't going anywhere soon. But just like national defense, intel, and the economy - IT is too important a resource to squander and take a hands-off, completely decentralized approach to.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Bill C — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:24:59 -0000

Stupid post. No mention of net neutrality, and Obama's support of it? No mention of the fact that the CTO position is well defined and in place within most state governments, state agencies, federal agencies, and major military commands, as well as in private enterprise? You spend most of this piece whining about telco subsidies - what does any of this have to do with having a national CTO?

CIO's in larger enterprises typically guide the tech strategy and partner with the business/operational leaders. CTO's typically manage the implementation and day to day operations of the IT org. It would have been far more interesting and beneficial to your readership had you focused on Obama's broader tech policy goals, his decision to opt for a CTO as opposed to a CIO, and how his tech policy proposals differ from that of Bush and McCain (not implying that McCain will be a carbon copy of Bush, but historical perspective re: broad tech policy, other than telco subsidies, would have been nice).

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Moonage — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:54:26 -0000

Best comment of the lot Dan. I completely agree with you on this.

The problem as I see it is very close to how Dan sees it. The biggest problem we have with the internet is not the technology, that's being resolved rapidly by the private sector. Additionally, it's being done by telcos, and non-telcos as well. So, yo single out telcos isn't really part ofthe equation. If they do a bad job now, the cable companies and private ISP's are more than willing to step in. Additionally, the advent of 3G will allow almost any provider to jump in. So, I don't see the technology issue that overwhelming. The bandwidth issue is already being addressed by the FCC, like them or not. There is no logical argument that a federal CTO would do any different of a job in that aspect. The problem we do have is figuring out what to do with ethical issues on the internet. Hackers, spammers, porn, hate crimes, pirating, child molestors and uncolntrolled discussion boards lend to a threat against our society that is not being addressed in any organized fashion. Each incident is treated as an individual crime, but there is no organized effort to address the problem as a whole. Now, the problem as Gates illustrated is it not normal for a CTO to address those issues. So, I think a cabinet position to address internet issues as a whole would be a swell idea, but the title of CTO is inappropriate and inadequate.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Chris — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:30:50 -0000

You need to do an apples to apples comparison dude.

Okay, Broadband penetration is better in South Korea than here.

How big is South Korea? How many square miles? How dense is the population?

Hmmm?

The US is large, with dispersed population centers. It is of course going to be more difficult to network than a smaller more dense country.

If you want to compare apples find an area in the US the same size as South Korea with the same population and check broadband accessibility that way. Maybe the states of Massachusetts, Maryland, and NJ.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Obsydian — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:42:10 -0000

Totally agree with Dan. This post has nothing to do with a national CTO. If you would like to call it An Argument Against Government Subsidies of Telcos that would be a more apt title. But like Dan said, you don't focus on the topic of a national CTO, you don't present any evidence relevant to the argument and you most certainly don't do anything to further my knowledge of the issue or contribute to the overall discourse of technological r&d in this country. Quite honestly you sound like an uneducated, uninformed, out-of-touch, right wing republican. You wonder why people bash you on your posts? It's because you sound more like an amateur writer rather than (@ the very least) a journalism student much less an actual journalist with an informed and objective piece of writing.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mannning — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:05:24 -0000

Did my imasge take?

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mannning — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:45:59 -0000

We do have quite a number of organizations in this nation whose main focus is on advising the government on technology matters, doing basic research, and fostering implementations onto the private sector. These include National Science Foundation, FCC, NIH, NIST, DARPA, DEA, NOAA and NASA, to name a few that come to mind. In addition, each major Department has a Technology focal center, sometimes named Undersecretary for Technology, or Science and Technology, or sometimes something more ambiguous. The Congress has a bunch of committees that "oversee, more or less" a myriad of government-funded technical projects. There are, in addition, over 1,100 other Agencies, Committees, Commissions or the like that "serve more or less" to regulate the hell out of some few areas that they are in charge of in our existence. No one has ever been able to really reduce these organizations to a sensible level, although Reagan managed to dent the thousand a bit.

Now someone wants to make a Cabinet position (or yet another Agency!) out of Technology? Sounds positively centralization-driven, and perhaps a ploy ultimately to gather greater control of the massive budgets and directions that these more than a thousand organizations command and pursue each year into the hands of one person (plus an enormous staff worthy of an important job, and a budget in the 10's of billions) to "coordinate, advise and advocate" on technology? Or much worse, to actually effect technology efforts directly, as in commanding changes, controlling budgets, and approving plans, staffing and contracts? Add yet another killer step to the 23 different agency steps of approval needed to build a nuclear powerplant.

This is out of sight the worst idea I have heard this season. Worse that Obama's plans. What, pray tell, would this additional burocracy gain us? What fountain of wisdom would it have that doesn't already exist in profusion in the nation? We need less government, not more.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

tm — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:59:52 -0000

Eric Schmidt thought he was going to get a cabinet position in 2000 there was just one problem, Gore lost. I remember because Eric Schmidt was CEO of the company I worked for at the time. That company being Novell. He's been waiting a long time.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

in_awe — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:29:50 -0000

The government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to choose the right horse in any number of areas. Or perhaps it is just too suseptible to political influences that bend decision-making processes to incorporate earmarks, porkbarrel spending, etc. to be trusted to "do the right thing".

Here in CA the taxpayers are saddled with a $1.5B state funded albatross to do only embryonic stem cell research. All the advocates of this proposition in 2006 argued forcefully (and untruthfully) that all advances in stem cell research will come as a result of embryonic stem cell efforts. They clearly were pursuing a political agenda. In the 2 years since then the major news in the stem area has come from other areas of research and study. But the proposition was cast in ironclad language that prohibited any deviation from the exclusive use of the money for embryonic stem cell work. Wha makes us think that the Barney Franks, and Chris Dodds and Maxine Waters, et al won't leverage a CTO to accomplish their own vision of what is "necessary" and appropriate?

How effective has government been in the applying multiple alternatives in champion-challenger form before funding an initiative? I am hard pressed to enumerate examples of this approach being used. Yet, the free market is based on competing approaches being assessed and the best alternative winning. Instead we will wind up with some bureacracy processing white paper bids before selecting the winner that will be funded with huge contracts.

I am not impressed with the advisors Obama has relied upon to this point in his career and campaign, and wonder why we should expect the quality of his choices to markedly imrove once he occupies the Oval Office.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:29:24 -0000

It's not just about Obama. The case studies for Obama's plans were passed under President Clinton under a Republican congress. Clearly, a national CTO is a nebulous position, and I covered more of the problems with it in my original August article with a direct focus on Obama's vision for it.

But the idea of tech subsidies to telcos is just a bad idea altogether, as it's been proven to fail in the not too decent past.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:17:16 -0000

Wow, Sandi - what a way to muddle the issue.

If all the FCC did was keep people from jamming radio transmissions, I don't think there'd be much negative to say about them.

You and i both know that isn't the case.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Mystral — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:11:49 -0000

Um... you don't appear to understand property rights. If you were to own the right to the frequencies you block in your hypothetical, so be it... otherwise, you'd just be a criminal ripe for a prison.

The FCC plays a necessary role in our current system: auctioning frequency/bandwidth. About everything else it does is arguable unnecessary. You *could* have a system where the first people to claim rights to a frequency in a geography wins. Prices would determine the market's access to wireless services. Set the price too high ($10k/month) and no one buys your product.

Get real. TRY to apply some intellectual rigor to your arguments.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Dan Philpott — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:46:04 -0000

I think you are exactly right about the analogy being to Surgeon General. The Surgeon General has no real power, barely has a budget but can be quite powerful in a advocacy and coordination roles. That's what most 'czar' positions are.

Czar's have essentially no power. The Drug Czar does not run the DEA, does not fund the military's interdiction efforts, does not make drug laws and isn't a socialist despot bent on bankrupting the United States. He's in a role where he can coordinate between agencies, advise on national drug policy and advocate on behalf of those policies. That's about it.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Dan Philpott — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:39:06 -0000

CTO is Chief Technology/Technical Officer. The CTO is a senior executive role which usually focuses on technology the organization produces, sells or develops. It is primarily an outward facing role.

For comparison the Chief Information Officer (CIO) is a senior executive role usually focuses on internal technology concerns such as corporate networks, servers, service provision and support.

However there is quite a bit of crossover between these two positions and no cast in stone definition for either. It really depends on the individual who inhabits each position and what they negotiate the role to be.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

dan — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:32:07 -0000

A chief technical officer or chief technology officer (abbreviated as CTO) is an executive position whose holder is focused on scientific and technical issues within an organization. via wikipedia

I think that its important to note that while the tech community is only concerned with the tech side of this issue, I would argue that a broader picture of the role a CTO would play within an administration is in order.

If you look at the broader picture, the world is in the middle of multiple revolutions - biological, cognitive, robotics, nanotechnology etc.. - and the fact is that there will be legislative and ethical issues surrounding all of these that will need to be addressed and currently, most of the population is completely unprepared for the world that is quickly approaching.

like it or not, the government will need to play a role in this because there are many areas of life that the private sector does not impact in the way that it does most of the people reading mashable.

on a final note, I think that the issue of broadband is actually a infrastructure issue and not a technical one - and we have a long history of government development of infrastructure - and infrastructure has often had a secondary function of helping the country through difficult economic times such as we face right now

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Sandi — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:06:32 -0000

Ummm. South Korea and Japan have the highest broadband usage rates in the world thanks to MASSIVE government investment in broadband infrastructure, and strict mandates and regulations that all rural areas and buildings have broadband that is faster than what almost any American consumer has available. In Western Europe and Canada, strict regulations require telecom companies to share bandwidth, provide equal access, and guarantee speeds.

The countries with fewer government regulations, mandates, and investment in consumer broadband? Western Africa, the Middle East, former Soviet republics. Oh, but they don't have a $1 Universal Access Fund either so I guess that's a plus.

Re: The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO

Sandi — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:35:42 -0000

Wow. Obama is talking about providing health care to dying children and your biggest problem is paying $1 to ensure rural America has phone service. I'm looking forward to your next post about how 911 (the FCC emergency phone call system) is a communist plot.

I can't wait until we have a Libertarian president so the FCC is dissolved and I can start my wireless spectum jamming service. Just $10,000/month, I'll unblock your cell phone, WiFi, TV signals, radio signals, and satellite! Maybe! We'll let the free market decide whether I actually unblock your technology or not. Probably not.