Sharon E. Gillett, the Massachusetts Commissioner of the Department of Telecommunications and Cable, delivered the keynote address at the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council’s “Anytime, Anywhere: 21st Century Interactions event on Thursday, November 1 at UK Trade & Investment in Cambridge, Mass.
The event looked at the future of global communications and services in a world without boundaries or borders. The roundtable discussion brought together leaders from Cyphermint, Raytheon, Center for Collaborative Health, the American Civil Liberties union and more.
Sharon’s entire address is below.
I would first like to thank the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council for inviting me here this morning and for convening an impressive cross section of leaders for what promises to be an informative exchange of ideas and a comprehensive examination of timely and far-reaching issues. We are gathered here today under the heading Anything, Anytime, Anywhere: 21st Century Interactions. It’s a broad banner – the MTLC can hardly be accused of trying to stifle our conversation or narrow our focus! That’s fitting because in today’s world, technology is as unlimited as our individual and collective imaginations. Boundaries and borders are diminishing as we shift into an age where voice, video, data, and all manner of combination services can be delivered in any format anywhere in the world at anytime. We are by and large connected to each other around the clock, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Though fraught with potential pitfalls, our new reality is equally rich with opportunities. As a newly-minted member of the public arena, I am responsible for getting my arms around these issues and developing policies that move Massachusetts forward. This is, as I’m sure you would agree, a daunting task.
Fortunately, my efforts are aided by the administration of Governor Deval Patrick and Lt. Governor Tim Murray. The premium the Governor places on telecommunications policy was evidenced early on when he created the Department of Telecommunications and Cable in January of 2007. The Governor’s re-organization split off the telecom-related functions of the former Department of Telecommunications and Energy and located our new agency within the Office of Consumer Affairs, under the Secretary of Housing and Economic Development. By elevating the department and placing it under the administration’s economic development arm, Governor Patrick has accomplished two significant objectives. First, he’s let folks both inside and outside of the industry know that he recognizes how critical telecommunications infrastructure is to our state’s economic well-being. Second, he’s ensured that telecommunications-related policy receives the focused, high-level attention it deserves. I am confident that this fundamental restructuring of how we think about and how we approach technology and innovation will be beneficial for our taxpayers and our businesses today, tomorrow and well into the future. So now that Massachusetts has a Department of Telecommunications and Cable, what exactly does it do? Allow me to fill you in on the Department’s key missions. First, we are required to regulate the telecommunications and cable industries in accordance with state and federal law. Given the deregulatory legal framework that has shaped the telecommunications and cable industries over the past two decades, very little of our regulatory mandate actually involves setting retail prices – arguably the function that has most traditionally been associated with state Public Utility Commissions. Rather, a bigger focus for our agency is fostering competition in both wholesale and retail markets, while at the same time ensuring that important public policy goals, such as good quality telephone service and reliable E911, do not suffer. DTC is an administrative law agency, but we are also called on internally, as industry experts, to provide input into the Administration’s telecommunications policies. Finally, the DTC also runs a consumer division that investigates and responds to consumer inquiries and complaints.
By now you may be asking yourself, why does the keynote speaker for an event on 21st century interactions run an agency whose technology focus remains squarely in the 20th century (some might even say the 19th)? Let me assure you that this is not as crazy as it sounds. Public policy interventions typically fall into place over time, as technologies mature and consensus develops on the need for government involvement. So the fact that my agency doesn’t directly regulate “anytime, anywhere” interactions reflects a healthy reluctance to interfere with emerging technologies. But it’s also true that my agency is hardly the only part of government relevant to the underpinnings of 21st century interactions. For example, the Federal Communications Commission, not the DTC, oversees spectrum policy for wireless services – a fundamental building block for interactions that aim to work “anywhere.” Furthermore, as I’m sure Carol Rose of the ACLU will discuss more fully during the panel, 21st century interactions can raise many concerns about the build-up and use of personal information. Governor Patrick and the Legislature have begun addressing these important issues through an identity theft prevention law that went into effect yesterday. Pursuant to the new statute, and in an effort to protect consumers, the Office of Consumer Affairs will be proposing regulations in the coming weeks to establish data security standards for companies that store Massachusetts residents’ personal information. These realities do not negate the fact that it is important for my department to keep its finger on the pulse of your industries – if for no other reason than to better gauge what role government can or should play in the future. Fortunately, the fourteen years I spent at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology prepared me well to do just that. Allow me to return to my MIT roots for a moment or two and offer some thoughts on “pervasive computing” – no doubt a less exciting buzzword than “anything, anytime, anywhere” interactions, but one that is more commonly used among academic researchers. One thing I learned for sure from my years in academia is that any field of research is bound to feature two diametrically opposed schools of thought, with the truth lying somewhere in the middle. Pervasive computing is no exception. One interpretation of the term envisions a world in which people are the masters and computers are the servants. Computing becomes “pervasive” as Moore’s Law enables ever greater computational capability to be squeezed into ever smaller and cheaper packages, so we can have lots of smart gadgets and take them with us anywhere.
The gadget that best exemplifies this view is the fully featured cell phone or PDA. By now these devices have the computational and communicative power that used to be reserved for desktop computers, but by and large that power only gets exercised in response to human actions, such as placing a call, booking an appointment, or reading an email. The devices may be “smart,” but they do not exhibit what most of us would call “intelligence.” For example they cannot, on their own initiative, decide to arrange a meeting that we know needs to happen. The humans remain in charge. The opposing interpretation of pervasive computing envisions a world in which the computers are invisible, but have taken control. The prototypical gadget in this view is the sensor. It may be a very simple device computationally; it may only know how to do one thing, such as reading the signal from an RFID inventory tag or your car’s Fast Lane transponder. But when lots of these very inexpensive devices get sprinkled all over the place and networked together, intelligence can result, typically in the form of pattern detection. For example, Fat Spaniel Technologies makes sensor network products that can monitor energy generation facilities, flag problems, and take corrective actions. I’m sure David Kopans will be telling us more about these types of applications later on. Regardless of whether humans or machines are assumed to be in control, visions of pervasive computing always seem to come in both utopian and dystopian flavors. Certainly cell phones and PDAs have helped many of us to become more organized and efficient. But they also interrupt us in libraries, restaurants, and theatres when we invariably forget to mute them. Despite the many years of research and development effort that have gone into “context-aware” computing systems, I still don’t have a cell phone that can infer when I would prefer it to ring, and when to buzz. In fairness to the machines, I myself am not always sure which type of notice would be preferable in any given situation, as the social conventions around cell phone use remain a work in progress. Furthermore, it’s evident that those conventions can depend on elements of social context – such as whether we are in the middle of closing a business deal or just shooting the breeze with a friend – that are not easily measured by machines.
Utopian and dystopian visions also apply to the machine-to-machine version of pervasive computing. Intelligent sensor networks hold great promise for alleviating drudgery and enabling mere humans to manage what would otherwise be impossibly complicated engineered systems. But with a nod to yesterday’s date, I’d like to tell you about the scariest book I ever read: Normal Accidents, by the organizational sociologist Charles Perrow. First published in 1984, the book lays out the assumptions that were built into the automated monitoring systems designed to keep the Three Mile Island nuclear plant safe. In meticulous detail, Perrow documents how interactions between this system and partially informed humans led to the disastrous meltdown of the reactor core. Nine years later in 1993, the columnist Michael Schrage penned a vision of machine-to-machine dystopia that is just as prescient, but fortunately more lighthearted, than Chuck Perrow’s analysis. Schrage’s “Modern Times” satire envisioned how a promised 1995 “smart home” might actually function in practice. At one point in the story, the homeowner discovers that because the smart home programmers never anticipated that a light bulb might burn out while the refrigerator door is open, he has to spend an hour rebooting his kitchen. As you read his column you can’t help laughing, but the glitches, over-promises, and security problems he imagines are funny only because they are so believable and familiar. So back to our academic dichotomy: where is the truth that lies in the middle? Should the people or the machines be in control? I believe that framing the debate in these terms is overly simplistic. It’s rather like debating whether husbands or wives should be the ones in charge of households when in reality, it’s the partnership between the two that makes a household run effectively.
In the same way, success in pervasive computing is going to require figuring out partnerships that work between people and machines. We need to figure out non-burdensome but accurate ways for computers to infer what people need. So as an industry, we are going to have to push forward the frontiers of context awareness and machine learning research and practice. Going in the other direction, we need to find the balance that allows machines to tell humans just what they need to know, without overwhelming them with details. Getting this right is going to require pushing forward the frontiers of human factors research and practice. For now, I will settle for having a cell phone that is smart enough to tell me who is calling, so that I can exercise my uniquely human judgment regarding whether to answer that call in the restaurant. Ten years from now, however, I hope that the progress all of you are going to make will mean that I don’t have to remember to mute my cell phone before standing up to speak. Whether they are more people-centric or machine-centric, utopian or dystopian, all visions of pervasive computing share one key characteristic: a fundamental dependence on universally available connectivity. Pervasive computing does not work without pervasive connectivity, period. The two are inextricably linked. That’s one reason the pervasive lack of broadband access in parts of our state is incredibly problematic. As many of you know, the other extreme of anywhere, anytime technology is on vivid display in large pockets of Western Massachusetts. If we gathered this morning in Goshen instead of Cambridge Mass, we would have to change the name of this program from 21st Century Interactions to 21st Century Disconnections. It is unthinkable that in this day and age some Massachusetts businesses and residents are trying to compete in a global, knowledge-based economy while trapped inside a technological time warp. It’s the equivalent of asking someone to win a boxing match and then tying their hands behind their back. A report in the Boston Globe several months ago told the stories of Berkshire County residents who applied to college using dial-up and have looked at YouTube just twice, who scrapped plans to file their taxes online when TurboTax required them to download an update, or who make lists of files they want to download and then burn them onto CDs while visiting out-of-state relatives.
This is the day-to-day reality in 32 communities in Massachusetts – they have no consumer broadband services available to them on a par with the cable modem, DSL, FiOS, or wireless services available elsewhere. And they certainly do not have the luxury of taking “anytime, anywhere” technology for granted in the way that you and I do. An additional 63 towns are underserved, with broadband access available in only some areas of the community. All but one of the unserved communities, as well as many of the partially served ones, are located in the four Western Massachusetts counties. There is ample evidence of the direct correlation between broadband access and economic stimulus. A study I co-authored while at MIT examined economic growth from 1998 to 2002 across all U.S. ZIP codes, comparing those that had broadband by 1999 against those that didn’t. Even after controlling for other factors that differentiate communities, we found that zip codes with broadband access recorded significantly higher growth rates in jobs and new business formation, as well as higher property values. Our team’s national methodology has recently been replicated at the state and industrial sector level by a team in Kentucky, where similarly large impacts of broadband on the local economy have been observed. Fortunately, here in Massachusetts, we are taking steps to close the broadband divide. I am happy to report that in our first few months of existence, the Department has been able to contribute its expertise on this critical issue. Two weeks ago today Governor Patrick filed a $25 million broadband bond bill. The legislation creates a Massachusetts Broadband Institute within an existing quasi-public agency, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. The Institute will make strategic and targeted public investments, with the objective of attracting private partners and leveraging additional resources to serve all unserved communities by 2010.
The Institute, led by a governing board made up of key state policymakers and governor-appointed experts, will allocate proceeds of general obligation bonds from the Massachusetts Broadband Incentive Fund. The state will use public funds to invest in essential, long-lived broadband infrastructure – assets like fiber, conduits, and wireless towers – and thereby make it more attractive and cost-effective for private providers to make complementary investments allowing them to reach currently unserved customers. Under the Governor’s plan, the state will not be a service provider. Our private partners will be selected via a competitive procurement process that will be open to all firms, including incumbents. The board will consider proposals spanning the full range of technologies and business models, including wired and wireless technologies as well as regional and local solutions. As a quasi-public organization, the Institute will have the necessary flexibility to make the most efficient use of public investment dollars by creating partnerships with private providers. The Institute will have the ability to work closely with both existing providers and new market entrants to foster competitive and innovative outcomes for the people and the communities that need them the most. Additionally, this plan will help Massachusetts lead the pack of states that have recognized the importance of ubiquitous broadband. Vermont recently approved an “e-state” bill that authorizes $40 million in bond backing using a similar method of partnering with the private sector to invest in critical infrastructure, focusing on cellular coverage gaps as well as broadband. California has access to a $60 million fund designed to leverage $250 million in private investment. At least six states, led by New York and South Carolina, have established broadband task forces to develop local solutions to broadband deficits.
The Broadband Incentive Fund plan has been very well-received. For some time now, legislators from the western region have been telling us that this is one of the top two issues they hear about from their constituents. They rightly view broadband as a critical economic development issue for the people and the communities they represent. I think it is also fair to say – and I think most would agree – that the digital divide that persists in parts of Massachusetts is as much about equity as it is about economics. There is no reason that students should be at a disadvantage solely because of their geographical coordinates. The broadband bond bill will go a long way toward bridging the gaps and leveling the playing field for everyone in those 32 unserved communities. I am hopeful that it will move through the legislative process quickly and reach the Governor’s desk in short order. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the broadband initiative or any of the other issues I’ve addressed. My thanks again to the MTLC for hosting this important event and to all of you for allowing me to share my thoughts on 21st Century Interactions.
