The broadband and technology policy positions of the current 2008 candidates for President provide telling insights into the candidates, the wireless industry and the likely future of America. A review of candidate policy positions revealed so far indicates much common ground – including what is in my opinion a curious oversight.
In keeping with our times and the need for enhanced homeland security, most of the candidates agree with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) that broadband -- and technology generally -- is a key tool in fighting terrorism. The “public safety” agenda of allocating spectrum, establishing communications compatibility across agencies and empowering government at all levels is also convincingly argued by John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY).
This same argument for broadband deployment takes a slightly different form among former governors who have joined the race. Former governors Jim Gilmore (R-VA), Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and Bill Richardson (D-NM) all tout their E-Government agendas while in state office. Like the public safety advocates, these candidates see broadband and technology as an opportunity to empower government to perform more efficiently and effectively.
Every candidate also seems to agree with John Edwards (D-NC) that broadband access for rural America is essential. Clinton, McCain, Hunter (R-CA), Gilmore and Huckabee all argue the social benefits of broadband deployment for remote voters, albeit they differ slightly on the best way to achieve deployment. This argument views broadband as an opportunity to empower the disadvantaged by giving greater access to health, education and other social services. All of the candidates speaking on this issue argue for at least some government action to induce deployment, with several seeking direct government subsidies, grants and other economic incentives to achieve the goal.
There is considerably less agreement among the candidates on the issue of Net Neutrality. Predictably, Democrats support Net Neutrality legislation by arguing that government intervention is necessary and desirable to stave off the threat of monopolistic control of the web by the respective carriers. The sole standout is Joe Biden (D-DE), whose common-sense approach suggests that activists favoring Net Neutrality legislation are trying to solve a problem that does not yet exist. Republicans, on the other hand, are uniformly against Net Neutrality legislation as unjustified government intervention in free market economics, including McCain, Sam Brownback (R-KS), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Tom Tancredo (R-CO).
Some Republicans are prepared to use government to regulate access to content on the web. Tancredo has supported legislation in the past to ban Internet gambling and favors increasing FCC fines for indecent broadcasting. Hunter has taken similar positions, while Paul has rejected these policies and called for deregulation of the Internet.
Democrats seem a little more worried about cyber-security and privacy than their republican counterparts, with Chris Dodd (D-CT) favoring public-private partnerships focused on privacy and securing information infrastructure. Biden wants better enforcement against high tech thefts, and Edwards argues for government regulation of spyware.
There are some candidates who do not appear to have much to say about broadband deployment. Barack Obama (D-IL) favors Net Neutrality legislation but does not appear to have a lot of other specifics on record when it comes to Internet access. Mitt Romney (R-MA) governed a “high tech” state but seems to have little to say on the topic of the Internet economy. Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) are also curiously silent on these issues.
The rhetoric favoring broadband deployment appears to be leaving unaddressed for the most part an important constituency: the entrepreneur. No longer do we hear about the opportunities of the “New Economy” as justification for investing in broadband. Instead, leaders are focusing on the politics of fear and justify broadband deployment solely in the name of security, government efficiency and social equality.
Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes and George Gilder would undoubtedly agree that this is a fundamental mistake and leaves open the door for a new candidate prepared to argue the case for growth. In this context, broadband deployment becomes an investment in our economic future and creates opportunity for entrepreneurship. This is the engine of America that will drive broadband to full deployment. It is also a message that leverages America as a land of opportunity and a beacon of world leadership, rather than an embattled fortress fighting global terror.
The argument favoring broadband as a prerequisite for achieving the full promise of the New Economy for all Americans is exactly the argument Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton would make. You can also count on Fred Thompson to make this case. While some may argue that this vision is no longer relevant in light of 9/11, it seems more likely that failure to focus on this promise derives more from the myopic vision of the candidates rather than any confidence crises in the American people. The politics of empowerment and opportunity has won elections in the past, and can do so again for the right leader and visionary.
What all this adds up to is that broadband is likely to be deployed by government for government. Large social institutions will benefit, and the socially disadvantaged will be advantaged. And the entrepreneurs will leverage this deployment to make good on the promise of the New Economy while they sit on their vote waiting for a political champion. |
