Tell Senators To Keep Broadband Investment In The Stimulus Bill

Today Beth Allen at Speedmatters.org sent out an email some of you may have received. If you did not get it - here it is:

Dear Speed Matters Activist,

We're getting closer to important new investments in high speed Internet across America.

After hearing from thousands of Speed Matters activists like you, the House of Representatives included funding for broadband infrastructure in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The Senate is debating stimulus legislation this week. But you know what can happen when Congress picks through a piece of legislation -- some parts are added, some parts are removed, and what finally passes can look very different from the original version.

That's why the entire Speed Matters community must send a strong, united message about the importance of broadband investment -- for the sake of our Internet and for the sake of our economy. Make your voice heard by contacting your Senators right now:

www.speedmatters.org/stimulus

Broadband funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a good start on the road to universal high speed Internet access, job creation, and economic growth. Every $5 billion in broadband investment creates an additional 100,000 jobs -- and provides the key infrastructure to keep our economy growing in the long-term.

The Senate stimulus legislation couples flexible grant programs with tax incentives to spur investment in rural areas and high speed networks and encourage job growth. It also includes funding for grants for broadband mapping, setting up community technology teams, and other broadband community outreach efforts. Together, these policies can solve the challenges of expanding broadband access and adoption and upgrading networks -- all while giving a strong boost to our economy.

Universal, affordable broadband also helps us address other pressing concerns, including health care, education, online job search and job training, our environmental crisis, access for people with disabilities, public safety, and civic participation.

Make sure your Senators know about all these benefits of broadband investment. Contact them today:

www.speedmatters.org/stimulus

We've gotten this close to new broadband investment and hundreds of thousands of good jobs -- we can't afford to let up now.

Sincerely,

Beth Allen
speedmatters.org Online Mobilization Coordinator

Sign the digital petition and get a sample letter to send to your Senators at www.speedmatters.org/stimulus

Broadband: Can We Catch South Korea?

A couple of months ago I wrote about our poor broadband penetration rate (15th) in the U.S. when compared to the rest of the world. First place last year went to South Korea and in looks like the Koreans will not be sitting back enjoying their lead. A couple of days ago the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) announced plans to increase high-speed Internet and wireless broadband services to rates 10 times faster by the end of 2012.

The proposed network will be all IP-based with a total cost of 34.1 trillion won ($24.6 billion) spread out over the next five years. The Korean government will pitch in 1.3 trillion won ($937.83 million), with the rest being covered by private companies. The KCC estimates the project will create 120,000 jobs. Connected high-speed Internet services will increase to 1 Gbps and wireless services will increase to 10 Mbps. Here's a couple of interesting quotes from the JoongAng Daily:

The KCC said the changes will make high-definition TV images up to 16 times clearer, and interactive TV services such as e-commerce and home schooling will also be possible. The service will also make it possible to watch I-Max films on home TVs.

“This plan will bring innovation to the public’s digital lives,” KCC said in the release. Digital TV coverage will also rise to 96 percent in 2012 from the current 87 percent, according to the plan. The KCC added that the project will help Korea cement its position as one of the world’s leading IT countries. More than 94 percent of Korean households already have access to high-speed Internet services, and Korea has the highest number of subscribers to broadband services in the world as of last year, according to OECD data.

Can we catch them? Let's see. The U.S. Department of State keeps population and area statistics on their website. Here's the latest on South Korea:

Population (2008): 48,379,392
Area: 98,480 sq. km. (38,023 sq. mi.); slightly larger than Indiana.

Doing some quick calculations figuring on the $937.83 million government input in South Korea:

Korean gov. dollars spent for upgrade per resident: ($937.83 million) / (48,379,392 people) = $19.38 per resident
Korean gov. dollars spent for upgrade per square mile: ($937.83 million) / (38,023 sq. mi.) = $24,664 per sq. mi.

Right now it looks like the Obama stimulus plan has between 6 and 9 Billion dollars tagged for broadband services. Do we have any chance of catching South Korea? Here's some statistics for the U.S.

Population (2008): 303,824,640
Area: 3,537,441 square miles

Let's use the higher $9 billion number and do similar calculations for the U.S.

U.S. gov. dollars spent for upgrade per resident: ($9 billion) / (303,824,640 people) = $29.62 per resident
U.S. gov. dollars spent for upgrade per square mile: ($9 billion) / (3,537,441 sq. mi.) = $2,544.21 per sq. mi.

We're in good shape when we compare dollars spent per resident - we're more than $10 over what South Korea will spend.

What hurts us is the physical size of our country - the South Korean government is spending almost ten times what we would spend per square mile. It looks like we're going to need to do things a little differently if we are serious about catching up.

Will U.S. Continue Broadband Slide Under Obama?

Since 2001, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States has moved from fourth in the world to fifteenth in broadband penetration. Not exactly bragging rights. Lot's of us have been out advocating for broadband reform and a new definition of broadband. Congress is working to determine what speed broadband should be defined as, whether taxpayer money should be invested in areas that do not have broadband access and whether existing slower networks should be subsidized for upgrades.Here's a summary from an article in today's Wall Street Journal:

Large cable operators are seeking to increase the FCC's definition of broadband download speed to about five megabits per second, about 6½ times as fast as the current definition, according to people familiar with the situation. Internet-service providers building out "unserved" regions, where service of that speed isn't available, would be given the full benefit of tax incentives or grants.

The big cable providers also want to target "underserved" areas, where there is only one broadband provider or the service isn't widely available. In those markets, companies would get incentives to build out next-generation services. The download speed that would qualify as next-generation would likely be in the range of 40 to 50 megabits per second, people involved in the discussions say.

I'm loving this right now but.... the smaller telcos don't like it - how come? Here's more from the Journal:

The cable plan would disadvantage phone companies, especially smaller ones whose digital-subscriber-line services are slower than cable modems. The Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, which represents midsize phone companies, is pushing for a slower broadband standard, in the range of 1.5 to three megabits per second. Curt Stamp, the group's president, says the federal largesse should be used to subsidize carrier investments in rural areas rather than to finance upgrades to their existing networks.

I've written in the past here frequently about our lack of a competitive broadband policy in this country. So..... cable companies pushing for higher speed broadband definitions and wanting to target "underserved" areas at speeds up to 50 megabits per second. Smaller telecos pushing for a new broadband definition that is about half of what the cable companies want. Here's a little more from the Wall Street Journal:

The Telecommunications Industry Association, which represents equipment makers, is pushing for a $25 billion grant program for Internet service providers. Under another proposal that is being discussed, grants could go to state and municipal authorities, which would build high-speed networks and then open them up to competing service providers. That would likely meet with considerable resistance from large carriers like Verizon Communications Inc., which have challenged attempts by local governments to build and operate their own wireless or high-speed fiber networks.

Cable companies, smaller telcos, big telcos and equipment manufacturers all lobbying and every day we continue to fall further behind the rest of the world. Obama will have his hands full trying to turn this one around - his transition team declined comment to the Journal.

What Is An Agent Of Change?

When you manage people, you are in it together.
And because you are the leader, you own all the outcomes, good and bad.
- Jack Welch

With the coming presidential election we've been hearing the word change used a lot. It's nothing new - it just seems to be ratcheted up because we're dealing with some extra hot issues this round. So..... what is this change stuff all about? Jack and Suzy Welch have an interesting perspective. In the October 20, 2008 Business Week WelchWay column, they are asked the following question by Anil Kale from Pune, India:

What kind of person is a change agent?

Jack and Suzy's answer is an interesting one. They start by saying that true change agents must have a single critical trait - power. They say most questions they get about change come from people deep within their organizations who have a burning desire to improve things and are frustrated with the organizational inertia in their way. They have good ideas, passion, dedication and hunger to be change agents but worry they cannot be.

Jack and Suzy go on saying by and large, change is still made by people with some sort of authority. It's driven by managers who have a platform to advocate for a new direction and the ability to hire, promote, and reward those who embace it. Change agents must be leaders to be effective - unfortunately - not all leaders are change agents.

Here's three other traits (besides power) that Jack and Suzy say are essential:

1. True change agents see a future no one else does, and that vision won't let them rest. They don't lead change because it "makes sense" or because change is "necessary." They lead change because they believe their organization must get ahead of an approaching "discontinuity" in order to survive and win. Typically, they've risen through the ranks because they've seen around corners before, and they're recognized for what they are, serial visionaries.

2. Change agents have the courage to bet their careers. True change agents are willing to take bold action - and accept the consequences. They know that leading change can be messy, with few clear-cut answers about how events will play out.

3. Change agents have something about them that galvanizes teams and turns people on. Perhaps the biggest misconception about change agents is that they're Lone Ranger types. In fact, the most effective change agents have a fervent core of supporters, cultivated through intensity and caring.

What's the business award? According to Jack and Suzy - for some change agents, it's the organization's survival. But for many others, it's not nearly as dire. It's growth, and all the good things that come with it: more and better jobs, new products, global expansion, not to mention their byproducts - excitement and fun.

True change agents have power, vision, bravery and support - Jack and Suzy say these people are rare - from my perspective I would agree.

*****
Take a look at Jack and Suzy's Business Week piece here. You can also listen to a podcast titled True Change Agents, found on their website The Welch Way.

Who Will Be The Best President For America In A Science-Dominated World?

The debates are over..... 19 days until the election and..... many of us have not heard much about either candidates positions on science related issues. How can we find out more?

Last year a group of 6 people labeled themselves Science Debate 2008 and called for a presidential science debate. Here's some detail from their website: In November 2007 a small group of six citizens - two screenwriters, a physicist, a marine biologist, a philosopher and a science journalist - began working to restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue. Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities.

Signers submitted over 3,400 questions they wanted the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of America. These 3400 questions were pared down to 14 and answered by each candidate. Science Debate 2008 believes these questions are broad enough o allow for wide variations in response, and they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.

Here's the 14 questions:

1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?

3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th.  What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

5. National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?

6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

7. Genetics research. The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?

8. Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?

9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?

10. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?

11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?

12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?

14. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

You'll have to visit the Science Debate 2008 website to see answers from Obama and McCain. The website has a lot of excellent content and is interactive - you can even vote and comment on responses to the 14 questions. It is worth taking a look at.

You can also get the 56 page PDF document of the questions and responses here.

McCain and Obama on Broadband in the United States

Before I start...... and if anyone wants to know - I will not endorse a specific candidate here and will keep my final choice to myself.

That said...... I've been picking apart the candidates technology policies - specifically in the area of broadband. I've written frequently here about the broadband divide - basically the bandwidth have and have-nots. Our track record over the Bush presidency period has not been good - in 2001 the U.S. was rated number 5 in the world for broadband penetration by the OEDC, today we rank 22nd. What happened over the past 8 years? What have other countries done that we have not been able to do? How come someone in Japan can get a 1Gbps Internet Connection in Japan for $51 / month while all I can get in South Hadley, MA is around 5Mbps for right around the same price?

Lawrence Lessig (an Obama supporter) claims our nosedive is because of changes in government policy. Lessig says we began the Bush administration with literally thousands of ISPs, both narrowband and broadband ISPs. We will end the administration with essentially two, if you are lucky, in any particular district.

From my perspective, Lessig is right - in 2001 I had one choice for broadband (cable modem) and I had probably 20 choices of narrowband (dial-up) service. Today I've got two choices for broadband - ADSL from Verizon and cable modem from Comcast. I'm not sure how many dial-up choices I have and don't really care! I do find myself asking why there is not more DSL competition where I live. Providers can legally co-locate in Verizon facilities and offer service over Verizon lines - what's up here? Why didn't the dial-up ISPs move to offering ADSL service? Many of them tried but most of them failed. Has policy driven these providers out of the market? Have the markets consolidated to the point where we do not effectively have competition any more?

Speaking of competition - I'm jealous of those who live in Verizon FiOS territory - we're just starting to see the cable companies and Verizon starting to leapfrog each other in bandwidth and price offerrings. Am I seeing this kind of response where I live - no. Why? I only have the two broadband options - cable modem from Comcast and ADSL from Verizon. Sources at Verizon tell me it will be years before I'll see FiOS in my neighborhood. Am I seeing any competition? Minimal - the two companies compete on price in my region, not bandwidth.

In his policy, McCain describes his “People Connect Program” that rewards companies that offer high-speed Internet access services to low income customers by allowing these companies offset their tax liability for the cost of this service. Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt (another Obama supporter) estimates this would cost us over $8 billion for just the top two U.S. broadband providers. If Hundt is right and not playing politics, the People Connect Program will end up driving most of the money to the largest providers and further burying smaller competing companies.

Obama's policy says: As a country, we have ensured that every American has access to telephone service and electricity, regardless of economic status, and Obama will do likewise for broadband Internet access. Obama's policy continues saying: we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) Obama's policy references is one fund with four programs. The four programs listed on the USF website are:

High Cost - This support ensures that consumers in all regions of the nation have access to and pay rates for telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas.

Low Income -This support, commonly known as Lifeline and Link Up, provides discounts that make basic, local telephone service affordable for more than 7 million low-income consumers.

Rural Health Care - This support provides reduced rates to rural health care providers for telecommunications and Internet services so they pay no more than their urban counterparts for the same or similar telecommunications services.

Schools & Libraries - This support, commonly referred to as E-rate support, provides affordable telecommunications and Internet access services to connect schools and libraries to the Internet. This support goes to service providers that provide discounts on eligible services to eligible schools, school districts, libraries, and consortia of these entities.

Here's more from the USF website:

Currently, all telecommunications companies that provide service between states, including long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers, are required to contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund. Carriers providing international services also must contribute to the Universal Service Fund. Telecommunications companies pay contributions into one central fund. USAC makes payments from this central fund to support the four Universal Service Fund programs.

McCain's policy does not mention the USF but does say ......he supports private/public partnerships to devise creative solutions and help rural area and towns and cities in their efforts to build-out broadband infrastructure through government-backed loans or low-interest bonds.

So, Obama says he'll reform the USF fund and use it to give new tax and loan incentives. McCain says he'll build out the infrastructure using government-backed loans and low-interest bonds...... I like Obama's idea of appointing the nation's first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.

Both lack enough detail to really get down to specifics. For example, neither policy includes what I consider one of the biggest broadband roadblocks in this country - a modern definition of broadband bandwidth. Obama's policy uses the term true broadband (whatever that is) and I did hear Obama use the word broadband in the debate last week. I did not hear McCain use it in the debate. I wonder if we'll ever see the 1Gbps they are getting today in parts of Japan for $51 / month in South Hadley, MA.

I teach so I suppose I should give them each some sort of a grade for the broadband sections of their policy papers:

McCain: C-
Obama: C

If McCain updated his policy, saying he would also appoint a CTO, I would probably change his grade to a C .........

McCain on Technology and Innovation

A few days ago I wrote about Barack Obama's policy for technology and innovation and take a look at John McCain's policy today. I got a lot of hits and a lot of feedback (I have not posted any of it) on the Obama piece with many asking who I was supporting. My intentions here are not to support or endorse a single candidate - my goal is to outline the plans of each candidate and keep my political preferences to myself - this is a technology blog not a political one!

In mid-August, about 8 months after Obama released his technology and innovation policy paper, John McCain released his 3000 word paper titled Technology. McCain's policy was drafted in-part by Michael Powell, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. In a format similar to Obama, McCain's policy lists 6 key points (Obama lists 5) with detail:

1. Encourage investment in innovation:

• Supports risk capital for investment in American innovation
• Will not tax innovation by keeping capital gains taxes low
• Will reform and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• Will lower the corporate tax rate to 25% to retain investment in U.S. technologies
• Will allow first-year expensing of new equipment and technology
• Will ensure technology and innovation is not hampered by taxes on Internet users
• Opposes higher taxes on wireless services

2. Develop a skilled work force:

• America must educate its workforce for the innovation age
• Fill critical shortages of skilled workers to remain competitive

3. Champion open and fair trade:

• Has been a long and ardent supporter of fair and open world trade
• Offering opportunity, low prices, and increased choice for our citizens
• Will protect the creative industries from piracy

4. Reform intellectual property protection:

• Will push for greater resources for the patent office
• Will pursue protection of intellectual property around the globe
• Provide alternative approaches to resolving patent challenges

5. Keep the Internet and entrepreneurs free of unnecessary regulation:

• Will preserve consumer freedoms
• When regulation is warranted, McCain will continue to act

6. Ensure a fully connected citizenry:

• Will pursue high-speed Internet access for all Americans
• Would place a priority on science and technology experience
• Would ensure that the federal government led by example
• Would support the federal government as an innovator
• Would make sure that all citizens can participate in the technology revolution

In my Obama post I included detail on how Obama would encourage the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure. Here's some detail from John McCain:

John McCain has long believed that all Americans, no matter if rich or poor, rural or urban, old or young, should have access to high-speed Internet services and receive the economic opportunities derived from technology. Access to high-speed Internet services facilitates interstate commerce, drives innovation, promotes educational achievements, and literally has the potential to change lives. As President, John McCain would continue to encourage private investment to facilitate the build-out of infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet connectivity all over America. However, where private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, John McCain believes that people acting through their local governments should be able to invest in their own future by building out infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet services. For this reason, Senator McCain introduced the “Community Broadband Bill,” which would allow local governments to offer such services, particularly when private industry fails to do so.

John McCain has fought special interests in Washington to force the Federal government to auction inefficiently-used wireless spectrum to companies that will instead use the spectrum to provide high-speed Internet service options to millions of Americans, especially in rural areas. As President, John McCain would continue to encourage research and development in technologies that could bring affordable alternatives to Americans, especially in rural areas.

John McCain would seek to accurately identify un-served or under-served areas where the market is not working and provide companies willing to build the infrastructure to serve these areas with high speed Internet services incentives to do so. He also supports private/public partnerships to devise creative solutions and help rural area and towns and cities in their efforts to build-out broadband infrastructure through government-backed loans or low-interest bonds.

John McCain will establish a “People Connect Program” that rewards companies that offer high-speed Internet access services to low income customers by allowing these companies offset their tax liability for the cost of this service.

Ubiquitous connectivity can allow employees to telecommute, or better yet, open up job possibilities to millions of Americans who wish to work from their home. As President, John McCain would pursue an agenda that includes encouragement of telecommuting in the federal government and private companies.

Comparing the two policies I see a few differences of opinion with the biggest being the issue of network neutrality. I'll write about those differences in an upcoming post.

Obama on Technology and Innovation

The Democratic National Convention starts today so I thought it would be interesting to take a look at Barack Obama's communications and Internet policies. Obama has a comprehensive technology and innovation plan posted on his website -the nine page document is titled BARACK OBAMA: CONNECTING AND EMPOWERING ALL AMERICANS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION. He lists 5 key points with detail:

1. Ensure the full and free exchange of information among Americans through an open Internet and diverse media outlets:

• Protect the Openness of the Internet.
• Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership
• Protect Our Children While Preserving the First Amendment
• Safeguard our Right to Privacy

2. Create a transparent and connected democracy:

• Open Up Government to its Citizens
• Bring Government into the 21st Century

3. Encourage the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure:

• Deploy Next-Generation Broadband

4. Employ technology and innovation to solve our nation’s most pressing problems, including reducing the costs of health care, encouraging the development of new clean energy sources, and improving public safety.

• Lower Health Care Costs by Investing in Electronic Information Technology Systems
• Invest in Climate-Friendly Energy Development and Deployment
• Upgrade Education to Meet the Needs of the 21st Century
• Create New Jobs
• Modernize Public Safety Networks

5. Improve America’s competitiveness.

• Invest in the Sciences
• Make the R&D Tax Credit Permanent
• Reform Immigration
• Promote American Businesses Abroad
• Ensure Competitive Markets
• Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad
• Protect Intellectual Property at Home
• Reform the Patent System

I found parts and pieces of the last three especially interesting. Let's look at some detail for #3 - Encouraging the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure. Specifically, Obama proposes the following policies to restore America’s world leadership in this arena:

Redefine “broadband:” Current Federal Communications Commission broadband definitions distort federal policy and hamstrings efforts to broaden broadband access. Obama will define “broadband” for purposes of national policy at speeds demanded by 21st century business and communications.

Universal Service Reform: Obama will establish a multi-year plan with a date certain to change the Universal Service Fund program from one that supports voice communications to one that supports affordable broadband, with a specific focus on reaching previously un-served communities.

Unleashing the Wireless Spectrum: Obama will confront the entrenched Washington interests that have kept our public airwaves from being maximized for the public’s interest. Obama will demand a review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum. He will create incentives for smarter, more efficient and more imaginative use of government spectrum and new standards for commercial spectrum to bring affordable broadband to rural communities that previously lacked it. He will ensure that we have enough spectrum for police, ambulances and other public safety purposes.

Bringing Broadband to our Schools, Libraries, Households and Hospitals: Obama will recommit America to ensuring that our schools, libraries, households and hospitals have access to next generation broadband networks. He will also make sure that there are adequate training and other supplementary resources to allow every school, library and hospital to take full advantage of the broadband connectivity.

Encourage Public/Private Partnerships: Obama will encourage innovation at the local level through federal support of public/private partnerships that deliver real broadband to communities that currently lack it.

C-SPAN recently ran an interview with Barack Obama policy advisor and former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Bill Kennard who discusses Obama's telecommunications policy. You can watch the 31 minute interview here.

Last week John McCain issued his own 3,000 word technology policy statement - I'll take a look it in my next post.

Obama's VP Text Message - How Much Money Was Made?

The Silicon Alley Insider posted an interesting piece yesterday titled Barack Obama's Million-Dollar Text Message?*. The author, Dan Frommer, attempts to calculate how much Obama spent and how much the U.S. mobile business received when Obama announced Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential running mate using a combination of email and text messaging.

The cost of sending bulk email was probably minimal but texting is different and it looks like some pretty big money was made by the wireless companies. Here's some assumptions used by Frommer to calculate the money made:

The Wall Street Journal estimates "over three million" people were signed up to receive the Obama VP text message. Frommer used $0.03 for Obama's sent/received messages.

Frommer assumes that Obama's campaign will pay a text message aggregator between 5 cents and 10 cents per person for each message it sends.

Frommer assumes that 50% of Obama's recipients will have to spend $0.20 to send/receive the text messages, or an average $0.10 per person.

Frommer assumes that the entire transaction generates a minimum of 6 charges: 3 for Obama, 3 for the recipient.

The six charges was a little confusing at first to me but Frommer makes it pretty clear. In order to receive the Obama message, supporters have to send his campaign a message (VP to 62262 or OBAMA). Then he will send a confirmation message back. Then he'll send out the actual update. Each one of those messages generates a charge for both sides. We're assuming it costs Obama the same amount to send and receive a message.

Here's a YouTube video of the text message posted by Watch Free TV.

Frommer estimates about $900,000 was spent by Obama's supporters and the wireless industry made as much as $1.17 million to $1.35 million from the VP text message. He's has been updating his post as new information becomes available - you can watch it here.