When a Committee is in the Driver's Seat

Until there is a greater sense of urgency, it will remain easier to brake in the face of uncertainty than it is to accelerate, certainly more politically safe. It just makes more sense to go slowly, steer around obstacles, and ride the brakes along the way, IF, that is, one is basically content with the way things are and feels they have time to burn to improve the odds and lower the risks and costs. It's more prudent, the argument goes, to move slowly, especially when the taxpayer's money is at stake.

But for those dissatisfied with the Status Quo, moving so slowly leaves them mired in the problems of today, when the possibility of a solution is tantalizingly close. "Without some acceleration into the dark, how will we ever know what lies ahead?" they ask.

Which leads us to ...

Some Boring, But Essential Truths about Broadband & Infrastructure

Can there really be gain without pain? I think not. Growth is about change, and that inevitably means leaving some parts of the past behind when you grow, much like a snake shedding its skin. Growing muscles is all about breaking down muscle cell fibers during the day, damaging the muscle tissue so it can repair itself during the night and the following day, growing incrementally stronger, only to then repeat the process - of course, lactic acid build up from exercising leads to "Muscle Soreness." Taking such dramatic steps to grow is essentially painful, thus the phrase, "Growing Pains." The first of the hard truths we must all face: Growth is Painful.

I don't know if there is so much debate out there as to whether the external environment is changing, as there is a continuum of perspectives on which individual civic leaders lie regarding the degrees of change, the need to respond, and the best method of response. On the one side are those progressives who focus on the future and the great possibilities inherent in technological change: "Finally, a chance to shed those old problems that bedevil us!' On the other end are those conservatives who focus on the past and the great threats inherent in technological change: "Not again, yet another call to change what's already working - if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Either way, the debate is around the nature of the environment in which we operate, and whether and/or how to respond. At the end of the day, the debate must produce some form of consensus on how to react to the environmental change, or you're left with a political stalemate, paralysis, and stagnation. If you choose to move ahead, do it together. If you choose to do nothing, acknowledge it as an explicit strategy and accept the consequences. This leads us to the second of hard truths we must face: Dynamic Times call for an Explicit Response.

Thus the battle lines are drawn by those with something to lose by change - the "pragmatists" and those invested in the status quo - and those with something to gain - the "idealists" and the have-nots.

The first battle is the argument over whether there is really sufficient environmental pressure to necessitate change. The first gambit of the progressive is to trumpet the pressures that external changes bring on the status quo, and the opportunities to respond in different, more productive ways. Conversely, the conservatives' first gambit is to ignore such changes, then when the ever-more-loud-and-shrill cries of the progressives get to be too much, demanding a response, the conservative makes light of the environmental changes and claims, "Why, even if you are right that something needs to be done, we already have the solution at hand, so we really don't need to change all that much."

"In the face of Change, Deny, Delay, Diminish," seems to be the strategy to maintain the status quo.

The result is Incrementalism, where small changes are implemented around the edges, in an attempt to demonstrate action but incur as little pain as possible. Which leads to the third hard truth: "Small changes will only get you small results over the short-term." Big problems will only be slightly altered by small solutions. Incrementalism accepts a bigger risk later in exchange for a smaller risk now.

These, I believe, are the principal obstacles to dramatic changes that would reshuffle the deck and realize the potential that lies at the heart of new technological advances:
1. Denial : "There's no problem."
2. Issue Avoidance: "Wait - What? I hear my name being called. Gotta go."
3. Delay or Deferral: "That's just not a priority, we can wait until we have more information, until the prices are lower, or until the pressure to do something is greater."
4. Incrementalism . "Sure, OK, it's a problem, but we can fix it by tweaking - no need to have a cow, Man."

Each of these tactics avoids a strategy to fix the problem and move ahead by substituting a strategy addressing the symptom while avoiding the pain of a fix. Pain avoidance is an attractive political concept, but there's a small fly in the ointment: together, these tactics have the impact of allowing small problems to grow larger, and large problems to grow immense.

That is where we have gotten to these days when it comes to infrastructure of all kinds, whether it is bridges, roads, schools, or broadband. It is the same with societal problems of all kinds, whether it is energy policy, health care, or climate change. These problems do not in fact go away under this formula, they only disappear temporarily, to come roaring back at a later date (preferably on someone else's watch).

Frum writes, "There are things only government can do, and if we conservatives wish to be entrusted with the management of government, we must prove that we care enough about government to manage it well."

There's a debate about the validity of the current conservative approach to governing (less government, lower taxes, etc.), with popular feedback expected in November 2008. Of course, results will vary from location to location. Nothing will be settled, and the debate will continue.

"The policy ideas in "Comeback" rely on the market more than on the state and are relatively small-bore, such as a government campaign to raise awareness about the dangers of obesity. As with most such books, the diagnosis is more convincing than the cure. The Fall of Conservatism, New Yorker

When we accept the politician's message that we can have all that we want without paying for anything, we are allowing ourselves to be deluded with sweet talk, because we know in our heart of hearts that there is no Free Lunch in the real world, we have to pay for what we get. We're deluding ourselves, postponing real-world solutions, and accepting bigger problems down the road.

The Bottom Line

Infrastructure is an investment by a society in a better tomorrow. Investing to bring future benefits should be judged differently than spending to provide present benefits. Given the greater payback, spending on investments over expenses should be a priority, all things being equal. But at a minimum, investments should be considered equally with expenses. In the absence of funding investments, one is condemned to continually spend on an increasing basis and ultimately, to falling behind those who suck it up and make the investments when they are cheaper to make.

A blog on Last Mile Online posted the recent news that the US is stuck at 15th in broadband penetration and asked for comments - mine are below.

It's a fairly straightforward equation from where I sit.

We'll move off this square only with 1) governmental leadership that challenges the status quo with a redefinition of broadband upwards of 256 Kbs and new policies to stimulate competition or infrastructure growth; or 2) a growth in availability and appreciation of high bandwidth content and applications, which will expose our current infrastructure and services paradigm as bankrupt, behind the times, and grossly inadequate. The needed pressure will be brought to bear from above (government) or below (market).

As the article in the New Yorker commented: "But governing well, in conservative terms, doesn't mean spending more money. It means doing what neither Reagan nor Bush did: mastering details, knowing the options, using caution - that is, taking government seriously." Metropolitan broadband networks need this kind of attention if they are ever to achieve serious consideration as a tool of efficient government operations.