A Peaceful Future?

The NYT reports that divergent views of subjects under discussion at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development require this level of security... "The convention center, which has been declared U.N. territory for the duration of the summit, is ringed with concrete and steel barriers. Some 8,000 security personnel have been deployed around the venue since the conference started Monday, backed by dogs, metal detectors and armored carriers."
Davos, Seattle, Genoa...It seems violence or its threat is the only response for those who hold passionate views on the future of the planet. Or is this the only way to attract attention? We cannot deny that Man is a violent critter!

Lesson Plans for 9/11

What to teach kids in school on the anniversary of September 11 creates controversy. The New York Times casts the opposing views in conservative and lberal terms. The debate becomes ideological. For me, and I believe most Americans, it's quite simple:
*Enemies of America killed 3,000 Americans and other innocent people.
*This act of war was pre-meditated and accomplished in secret, not unlike the attack on Pearl Harbor 60 years ago.
*America must protect itself. A good offense is the best defense.
*President Bush's policy to wage war on terrorism is correct.
*The notion that somehow America is at fault for this terrorism is nonsense.
*Evil ideas and false beliefs spawned destruction at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
*Police, firemen and rescue workers involved in the tragedy are heroes.

These are the lessons that must be taught to our kids about 9/11.

Elephants are Awake!

The elephants are not only awake but on the move. We are in danger of being trampled by the desires of copyright owners, service providers and consumers of the content protected by copyrights. The elephants in this controversy are hauling all their ammunition to the front. We have Hollywood, the Congress, consumer advocates, and now the service providers all tromping in the digital jungle. The stakes are high and rising. Hollywood wants to sustain profits. Consumers want content at the lowest possible cost; free is the lowest possible cost. Telcos want liability protection, as do ISPs. The hardware elephants don't want to be told how to design their stuff and Congress thinks it can solve the problem legislatively. Meanwhile, the jungle snares all these elephants in that colossal internet theft ring. Can 50 million consumers be cheats??

Where will it end. For many years the mantra has been "Information wants to be free." Music, videos, software... all strain to be free attracted by the magnet of users who believe if I can get it for free, why should I pay?

Seems everybody's rights are in conflict. How to resolve? No easy answers to this one, buster! The dilemma is how to enforce the legitimate monetary rights of artists and content owners when the definition of 'fair use' continues to expand upon the skills and beliefs of those who believe piracy is today's expression of 'fair use.' Seems the underlying driver here is a moral dilemma. Piracy is 'justified' when the little guy/gal feels it's OK to steal from the big elephant because that elephant is an SOB anyway. Lost in all of this is how the creator of the content is protected and reimbursed for his/her labors.

Seems to me that theft made easier in a digital age is still theft, no matter the size or motivations of the elephants.

Tromp. Tromp. Methinks the Hollywood elephant will change eating habits (business model) soon.

Con Hogan Has it Right

Con Hogan, Independent candidate for Governor, understands how issues are connected, unlike his opponents who sometimes play to the hot buttons and emotionalism of specific issues for affected constituencies. His is the right answer for the two toughest, long-term policy issues facing Vermont right now. We must get these right. To play the environment against the economic vitality of Vermont is a mistake. Both must be addressed together and solutions will be difficult. Costs for some environmental issues will be high, e.g., water quality assurance, but the consequences for inaction are also high. The only viable approach to a continued healthy environment for tiny Vermont is a healthy economy to produce both profitable businesses and a tax base that enables solutions.

"Business vitality in an environment second to none

The mutually beneficial relationship between a healthy economy and a
healthy environment has yet to be realized in this state.

For some time now we have viewed business platforms and environmental platforms
as competitors that divide our focus, energy and resources. In fact, the
opposite can be true. The stronger our business climate, the stronger our
economic vitality, and the more resources we have to produce a Vermont
environment second to none.

It is all connected. We can no longer think about one program or another as
being the key to our future. We have to understand more fully how these economic
and environmental issues interact. We need a new way of thinking, which starts
with coming together around the common purpose of a vibrant economy in an
environment second to none."

Vermont's Political Season (ings)

Mr. Shumlin's editorial confirms his traditional confrontational style. "I am saving you from the greedy pharmaceutical companies. Look to me (Vote for me?), I'll help save you." The price of drugs is not best controlled by Mr. Shumlin's warlike diatribe. The cost of healthcare is a spiraling concern. Societally we don't have an answer because indvidually we are without restraint. We want all of it at an 'affordable' price. Problem: we can't afford to have it all. Technology will continue to produce wonderful devices and drugs that outstrip our ability to pay for all these wonders of modern medicine unless we exert disciplines and restraint on how much health care we individually consume...easier said than done. Unfortunately, war with the providers, evidenced by Mr. Shumlin's rantings, is not the right approach.

I note he also voted in the minority (7-2) yesterday when the Joint Fiscal Committee wrestled to the ground the $39 Million budget shortfall . Spend, Mr. Shumlin...tax and spend. Too bad Vermont can't afford your agenda.

Telecom in Vermont... musings

Telecom...big subject with huge implications for economic development and citizen expectations. Inherent structural difficulties abound because of the relatively small Vermont market with scattered population centers and low density. Perception of Vermont telecom by visitors, particularly tourists seeking recreation, second homes, etc., is important. Some of these folks may be decision-makers who really like the place, but wonder about the telecom and other infrastructure to support them, should they contemplate moving or opening a business here.

We Vermonters struggle incessantly with this tension... to display VT as a quiet, laid-back, bucolic, wonderful place to 'be' (Please bring your $ and spend them here) and to offer the latest in telecom technologies to spur targeted types of business growth.

Today's hot telecom focus is broadband (for another day) and wireless.

Wireless:
Here's what savvy politicians should do. Candidates for statewide office and incumbents articulate this public policy: Vermont must have reliable, statewide digital cellular/mobile service by PICK YOUR NEAR TERM DATE...2004, 2005, 200? Many impediments (is 'challenges' more PC?) exist, but without a shared vision and clearly articulated policy, no coherent action plan can be developed. There are myriad details underneath such a declaration..., regulatory, environmental, vendor willingness, etc., but I think the right state leader could obtain buy-in from all parties to make it happen. Which candidate will step up to the plate?

Of course, an alternative is to leave this totally to the marketplace under the conditions providers now experience. Risky, given the pain of permitting, with no assurance that we'll have ubiquitous digital cell service any time soon. Unless providers have a predictable, cost-effective process for siting necessary antennas and equipment, why should they invest here if their options for limited capital are better elsewhere? Investment location choice is a marketplace reality! With the will to do so, Vermont can remove impediments and attract that investment here.

Some good news... "On August 14, 2002 the Environmental Board approved the Act 250 Application Package for Communications Facilities. The application package was approved after extensive input from telecommunications providers, the general public, state agencies, and other interested persons. The application package will provide for a more comprehensive and consistent review of telecommunications facilities under Act 250, including new towers and co-locations on existing structures." The not-so-good-news...the application consists of 23 pages, and it would appear that a complete application could require scores more pages. I wonder how much time and cost is consumed, on average to site a cell tower?? Wonder how that compares with VT, NH, NY, and other places... A savvy Vermont politician should find out.

Meanwhile, visitors to many parts of our fair state can't use their cell phones. Should we do a visitor exit survey to find out what they think?
[disclaimer: author is Board VP of Vermont Telecom Advancement Center]

Telecom in Vermont... musings

Here's a big subject with huge implications for economic development and citizen expectations. Inherent structural difficulties abound because of the relatively small Vermont market with scattered population centers and low density. Perception of Vermont telecom by visitors, particularly tourists seeking recreation, second homes, etc., is important. Some of these folks may be decision-makers who really like the place, but wonder about the telecom and other infrastructure to support them, should they contemplate moving or opening a business here.

We Vermonters struggle incessantly with this tension... to display VT as a quiet, laid-back, bucolic, wonderful place to 'be' (Please bring your $ and spend them here) and also to offer the latest in telecom technologies to spur targeted types of business growth.

Today's hot telecom focus is broadband (for another day) and wireless.

Wireless:

Here's what savvy politicians should do. Candidates for statewide office and incumbents articulate this public policy: Vermont must have reliable, statewide digital cellular/mobile service by PICK YOUR NEAR TERM DATE...2004, 2005, 200? Many impediments (is 'challenges' more PC?) exist, but without a vision and clearly articulated policy, no coherent action plan can be developed. There are myriad details underneath this statement, regulatory, environmental. But I think buy-in from all parties could be garnered to make it happen.

Of course, an alternative is to leave this totally to the marketplace under the conditions providers now experience. Risky, given the pain of permitting, with no assurance that the task will be completed. However, unless providers have a predictable, cost-effective process for siting necessary antennas and equipment, why should they invest here if their options for limited capital are better elsewhere? Investment location choice is a marketplace reality! With the will to do so, Vermont can remove impediments and attract that investment here.

Some good news... "On August 14, 2002 the Environmental Board approved the Act 250 Application Package for Communications Facilities. The application package was approved after extensive input from telecommunications providers, the general public, state agencies, and other interested persons. The application package will provide for a more comprehensive and consistent review of telecommunications facilities under Act 250, including new towers and co-locations on existing structures." The not-so-good-news...the application consists of 23 pages, and it would appear that a complete application could require scores more pages. I wonder how much time and cost is consumed, on average to site a cell tower?? Wonder how that compares with VT, NH, NY, and other places... A savvy Vermont politician would find out.

Meanwhile, visitors to many parts of our fair state can't use their cell phones. Should we do a visitor exit survey to find out what they think?

[disclaimer: author is VP of Vermont Telecom Advancement Center]

Thanks, Verizon

The Vermont Youth Orchestra culminated 10 days of learning, practice, rehearsal and I suspect much good fun with a wonderful concert on Saturday, August 17. These kids and their teachers and leaders performed masterfully. Thanks for all the hard work and thanks, Verizon, for sponsoring a part of this experience! My grandsons really benefit from the VYO.

Water, water everywhere...

Vermont is extraordinarily fortunate to have a generally abundant supply of fresh drinking water, yet debates rage about the preservation of our streams, rivers and lakes. The availability, cleanliness and control and of water supplies for drinking and recreation is high on our list of issues and the subject of great debate. It seems the French have a long term strategy to be in the water business big time. Vivendi (yes, the same outfit we know as an entertainment conglomerate!) is a major owner of water supply systems worldwide. Here is a public/private ownership debate that can only intensify in the years ahead.
Here's an excerpt:
Other activists worry there is a flaw in the logic of privatization: If companies make money by delivering water, won't their incentive be to sell as much as they can rather than to conserve a scarce resource?

But William Cosgrove, a Canadian consultant who helped draft the World Water Vision paper for an environment summit last year in the Hague, Netherlands, insists that most people, company executives included, believe water is a basic right. "This is controversial simply because it's not understood," he said. "As long as it is accepted that governments set up regulatory frameworks and define objectives, they can make the best use of water they have."

"Executives at Suez and Vivendi agree. Jean-Luc Trancart, a Suez spokesman with long experience in French water management, argues that private companies fill a vital need. "I always tell activists if they really want to hurt us, they should make the public sector work better," he said."

I certainly don't want water supply systems owned by Vermont governments, except in unusual cases. Who owns water anyway? Is it like oil that we can own if we find and extract it? If I fill a tank truck with water from a public source, do I 'own' the water? Water ownership is debate that will surface at some point. According to the PSB, we have at least 45 Vermont water companies. Do they 'own' the water they move through their pipes?

I'm thirsty.

Our Next Governor
A vision for Vermont's future should be the lynchpin of the gubernatorial campaigns. Each viable candidate, Douglas, Hogan and Racine, should be asked by voters and the media for a clear statement of their vision for the next 10 years. Building on that vision, they must be able to articulate sustainable policies to reach that vision. Sustainable is the operative word here. Since Vermont has less than 700,000 people, their policies must be consistent with taxes that Vermonters can afford. Today I think we Vermonters have goumet cravings for what government can do but with a fast-food budget, as the present $39 Million shortfall proves.

It begins...

A view of the world from my many perspectives, some around today's events, some rooted in deep beliefs, some shaped by the technologic realities of today's and tomorrow's world. We'll see where this leads. Lord, provide the impetus for frequent posts!