All posts by Rob Atkinson
To listen to the debate about Internet governance, the world faces a Manichean choice between an open Internet—where everyone is free to share any information they wish—and a closed one, where governments block and prohibit vast troves of information. Given this stark choice, the only sensible side to take is openness. After all, as ITIF has shown, global information flows are critical not only to commerce but to the general flourishing of the knowledge economy and democracy.
But as in all other aspects of society, we don’t actually face such a binary choice. Reality is far more nuanced. The Internet is not completely open, nor should it be. As a case in point, the world should welcome the recent announcement by major Internet firms including Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, which are taking steps to block images of child sexual abuse. In this particular case, leading Internet companies are using a database of digital fingerprints compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation to identify known child sex abuse images and block their distribution.
Because what is being blocked is rightly deemed to be horrific and socially corrosive, even the
I had the honor of giving a keynote presentation on August 6 at the Fifth Ministerial Conference on the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean in Mexico City (video here). Hosted by the United Nation’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Government of Mexico, the conference was attended by government officials and others involved in information and communications technology (ICT) policy in the region. The focus was on how the region can coordinate more effectively on ICT policy and how Latin American and Caribbean countries can learn from each other. Three main things struck me during the conference: there was a distinct focus on trying to create the next Silicon Valley, an emphasis on fostering small businesses, and competing visions of opportunity versus growth. Although I have to say these were not surprises, as I have found that many policymakers around the world hold similar views on these topics.
Discussion turned repeatedly to the question of how to create “the next Silicon Valley,” rather than how to create the next ICT-enabled economy. In other words, too many policymakers focus on trying to
Policymakers around the world have increasingly come to realize that entrepreneurship, particularly high-growth entrepreneurship (HGE), is critical for economic development in nations at all levels of development. That is one reason the United Nations Foundation asked Michael Dell, founder and CEO of Dell Inc., to be the Global Advocate for Entrepreneurship and to work closely with the Foundation and its Global Entrepreneurs Council to help shape and advance a global entrepreneurship agenda.
To inform the Council’s thinking, Michael Dell led a meeting in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2014, hosted by 1776, a cutting-edge “accelerator” to help technology-based entrepreneurs translate their ideas into growing businesses. The meeting participants included tech-based entrepreneurs and policymakers, and I was asked to participate and serve as rapporteur.
Michael Dell opened up the roundtable with a discussion of proposed policy mechanisms to spur high growth entrepreneurship, including ensuring access to capital, technology, talent, and markets. The following is a summary of the themes and recommendations from the discussion.
The Nature of Technology-Enabled Entrepreneurship Opportunities
Policymakers around the world are interested in HGE because they understand that technology opportunities driving this type of entrepreneurship have exploded.
As of this week, there are 16 declared candidates in the 2016 presidential sweepstakes, with at least five more waiting in the wings. This makes for a rich cacophony of themes, messages, and policy proposals. But at the end of the day, this campaign really should be about one thing above all else—how to make the U.S. economy truly flourish again. Most people would agree we need an economy that is marked by expanding opportunities, rapidly rising wages, lower unemployment, and a broad-based sense of optimism about America’s fortunes. The question is: How can we create those conditions?
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has offered a series of concrete recommendations in an open strategy memo and suggested campaign speech that we invite all candidates to borrow from freely. They detail a comprehensive policy program to grow the U.S. economy by invigorating enterprises through greater innovation, productivity, and competitiveness.
This enterprise-centric approach would constitute a wholesale reimagining of both conservative supply-side and liberal demand-side economic doctrines, yet partisans in both camps will find proposals they can embrace unreservedly. Among other things, the right will welcome initiatives to streamline regulations
What a difference a century makes. No, not in technological innovation, but in technological pessimism. As David McCullough writes in his new history of the Wright brothers, their discovery was met with near universal excitement and optimism, even in the face of setbacks, some of them fatal. Today, a century later, innovation and innovators are more often met with skepticism, approbation, and opposition.
Case in point is from Joe Nocera’s op-ed in The New York Times about Google’s driverless car effort, as part of its Google X project. Nocera relates how John Simpson, head of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog, bought a few shares of Google stock so he can go to their board meeting to berate Google executives for developing an autonomous vehicle. Simpson noted that Google’s cars have been involved in 11 accidents (although all have been minor and none of them caused by the AV car itself). He also warned that the Google car would steal our privacy. In other words, he berated Google for trying to innovate what could well be one of the most important technological breakthroughs of the 21st century. Indeed, as I wrote
I keep telling myself that the claims of tech populists about net neutrality could not get wackier, but then they go and say something that makes you realize, “yes they can.” Case in point, Alex Nogales, of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, writing this week:
“We just won a historic victory, a critical step towards equality for Latinos in the digital age. Yet many American Latinos are unaware of this win and the tremendous potential it brings for us and our families to achieve full participation in the American Dream: better educations, better jobs, more financial stability and more political power. No, unfortunately, I am not talking about important and much needed reforms to education, immigration, criminal justice, and the other major issues before us today. But this victory has far reaching implications for the way we leverage our burgeoning political power in these kind of fights in the months and years to come. So what is this beautiful, mysterious victory? On February 26, the Federal Communications Commission voted to adopt “Network Neutrality” rules.”
If Cesar Chavez were alive, I wonder what he would say. How would a man who
In 1871, America became the largest economy in the world. 144 years later we need to admit that while we’ve had a good run, it’s time to let other countries have their turn. China just overtook us as the largest economy last year. And other nations, like India, are on their way up.
So I say, let’s stop being selfish. We can get used to being number 2, or even number 20. We’re America after all, we can do anything, including lose gracefully.
Besides we don’t want to hurt other nations, especially those poor ones. We have lots more money than the Chinese and Indians. Why then are we trying to compete with them and not letting them have our high wage industries that they need more than us. If they want to take our aerospace, machinery, heavy equipment, computers, software and life sciences industries, who are we to say no, even if they use unfair methods to win. After all they are poor, so it’s okay for them to cheat.
Now it is true, as China specialist Michael Pillsbury writes in The Hundred Year Marathon, that China has
Recently, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler gave a speech arguing that “A 25 Mbps connection is fast becoming ‘table stakes’ in 21st century communications,” with the implication that anything less than 25 mbs is not really broadband.
This is an odd sort of statement, as it appears to be based not on any real analysis, but simply on the Chairman’s opinion. He tried to provide some rationale for this number when he stated “It’s not uncommon for a U.S. Internet connected household to have six or more connected devices – including televisions, desktops, laptops, tablets, and smartphones. When these devices are used at the same time, as they often are in the evenings, it’s not hard to overwhelm 10 Mbps of bandwidth.” I don’t know about you, but I personally am generally not using two devices at once. And as the Census Bureau reports, the average household size in the U.S. is 2.58 people with the median size being less. So, the majority of households are not overwhelming 10 Mbps of bandwidth.
So, if sub-25 Internet connections are not really broadband what does this mean in terms of what nations have
Since 1998, the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) has been essential in promoting the expansion of e-commerce and ensuring a level playing field for Internet businesses. This will change on December 11th without decisive action from Congress.
The moratorium on Internet access taxes has been a central tool in driving innovation and the exponential growth of the Internet over the last two decades. It has spurred development in nearly every sector of the economy from Silicon Valley technology giants to new entrepreneurs to more traditional industries such as manufacturing, health care and education.
Since the ITFA was enacted, the Pew Charitable Trust estimates Internet usage among Americans has grown from below 25 percent in 1998 to over 85 percent today. For minorities, the growth in usage has occurred primarily in the last decade. These gains could be reversed if the act is allowed to expire and costs on Internet access rise.
What’s more, helping consumers, schools and small businesses continue to access the Internet is not a partisan issue. Permanently extending the moratorium on Internet access is widely supported in both the House and Senate by both parties. Everyone agrees:
For a long time, I and many other Washington tech policy types believed that our nation faced a shortfall in the number of highly skilled scientists and engineers (e.g., the STEM workforce) and that this shortfall hurt U.S. innovation and competitiveness. But as Keynes once said when asked why he changed his mind, “when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do sir.” So I am grateful to Rutgers professor Hal Salzman for pointing out the error of my thinking.
Salzman tells us that only one out of four STEM graduates works in their field (it’s actually 1 out of 2 and he knows this). He tells us wages for STEM workers have been flat for the last 16 years (STEM wages actually increased about twice as fast as non-STEM wages). He tells us that engineering colleges produce 50 percent more graduates that are hired into engineering jobs each year (actually its one to one, not 1.5 to one). He tells us that IT employment is below its 2002-2003 peak (actually between 2003 and 2010 IT workers grew by 19 percent while total employment fell by 0.8%).