I Know You Are, But What Am I?

It seems we all have two paths to pursue in the face of such differences - either one or more parties seek to beat out those whose opinions and perspective differ from their own, to prove their point to a government regulator or lawmaker, and so gain a WIN. Or, the parties can choose to find a way to accommodate differences and find a middle path that will work for both sides. But without government leadership, the second path is not chosen. Guess which path we're currently on...

Stephen Covey in his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People describes this common scenario, showing how "Seeking a Win/Win Solution," Habit No. 5, is consistently more effective at fostering interdependence than is the much more common Win/Lose approach. In fact, he argues that the unanticipated, but far more common outcome of parties seeking a Win in a Win/Lose scenario is in fact, Lose/Lose. And that's where we find ourselves today when it comes to broadband policy - the whole nation loses because of the acceptance of a Win/Lose paradigm as our foundational condition for the discussion at present. Being stuck in the Win/Lose paradigm fosters conflict and leads us to expend a tremendous amount of resources in supporting hard positions against an opposition.

Cooperation matters when it comes to broadband policy because as long as we're all looking at the same situation and drawing dramatically different conclusions, we speak different languages, we don't understand one another, and in the end, we'll have an incredibly hard time finding ways to work together.

And as long as we are unable to work together, there will be Winners and Losers chosen by government regulators and lawmakers, often based on criteria other than merit.

As long as stakeholders are left out, we'll have slower adoption of new technologies, less experimentation with new business models, slower penetration of broadband infrastructure, less economic development, lower revenues and a lower standard of living. In short, by narrowing our options to fit this evolutionary status quo model, we short-change the nation - in other words, by pursuing Win/Lose, we get Lose/Lose.

Keeping a closed mind, my attitude influences my reaction to this US Court of Appeals ruling. It's easy to imagine me asking "How/Why should I work with someone who is either a) completely wrong on nearly every issue; b) an obvious idiot; c) an evil person with suspect motivations?" Better to label those who have a different view as the enemy and attempt to defeat them.

There's one small problem: this particular enemy is not easily defeated and they don't go away. That's the challenge we have today - we have to work within the system to get what we need, but those of us who challenge the status quo and seek reform are not currently working from a position of strength sufficient to bring those with power to a different way of looking at things.

If you're starting from a position of strength and have a Win/Lose attitude, you craft a strategy to leverage your strengths. You see a battlefield, you anticipate your opposition and you kill it off or buy it up. You insinuate yourself with the rule makers, you control the industry the best you can, and you design it so that it favors your approach. If this is a battle and you are fighting to win, that makes sense.

However, by excluding others from the game, these giants are left with an insular point of view, they have less access to the creativity and innovation that these upstarts bring to the table, and they ultimately end up creating a slower economy where there are fewer revenue generating opportunities.

On the other hand, if you're starting from a weaker position, you avoid face-to-face battles, you argue for equity and hope for Fair Play to win out. You promote rationality and make reasonable arguments to the "Decider" (dare I use that word?). When this doesn't work, you pull back and focus on niches where you can keep hope alive, waiting for that better day when conditions may change. It's disheartening and many are sorely tempted to give up. "Why bother, what's the use ... it's a rigged game."

But since we're in a global market, those countries and societies that are more functional less dysfunctional are better able to harness divergent viewpoints and integrate new technologies will move ahead faster, and that's what we see happening in broadband today.

This is the true tragedy in the current situation - not that the incumbents win, or that we are stuck with slow (or no) broadband - the true tragedy is that our future is being kept from us. Without a ubiquitous 21st century broadband infrastructure, our society will not experience the full potential of the Internet and its accompanying technologies, until much later. We may get there, some day, but in the meantime we'll have lost tremendous ground to other countries and societies that are more progressive than we are. Who can begin to calculate the lost opportunity in such a delay?

Imagine a middle path, where we enjoy enlightened leadership that steps out and guides us down a policy-making path that fosters inclusion, that harnesses innovation regardless of its source, that seeks a common definition of the problem, that requires an open approach to solutions and provides for a feedback loop so that all learn from experience.

When it comes to broadband, as long as we continue with the current paradigm, we're doomed to go slow and be limited by the creativity and efforts of the incumbents. Until we change the way we look at the nature of the broadband problem, we'll not be able to get everyone on the same page, nor will we be able to reach any synergy (Covey's Habit 6, by the way). Again, who knows what we're missing out on by not working together?

Understanding these Truths About Interdependence is one of the key issues in finding a way to be effective as a society, as an economy, as a body politic.

I'm afraid that for at least right now, we're stuck in an ineffective mode and the results we can expect are fairly predictable. MOTS .. More of the Same.