SAN JOSE, CA – My colleague, Jeanette Gibson, was on a blogging panel this week and Valleywag.com was there and this here blog you are reading right now got a nice plug on their site. Check it out here: http://www.valleywag.com/tech/cisco/. Okay, it was “check out Cisco’s High Tech Policy Blog” but I’ll take what I can get.I had a busy week in Monterey assisting with the arrangements of a guest speaker at our annual Leadership offsite and will blog on that next week. Hint: the guest speaker is from Arkansas, lives in New York, has a wife who is a Senator, has a buddy from Tennessee, and used to have the launch codes.
SAN JOSE, CA – Rather than replying to a comment from my last post I thought I would recommend the reading of a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert. Recent, as in March 29th.In defining the net neutrality debate, he offers the following analogy: “Say you decide to buy sweaters for holiday gifts. You calculate the price, add the cost for standard delivery, and send in your order. But L.L. Bean says “Hey, in the spirit of the season, we’re going to provide express delivery at no extra cost to the customer. We’ll work with Fed Ex to cover the gap between standard and expedited service.” Would we get government involved to stop it? Would it even occur to us to object? If Lands’ End said, “Not fair,” would we rally to its aid? And would the fact that other outdoor clothing providers might one day decide to enter the market justify turning a history and tradition of business practice on its head? Not a chance.”Very interesting point and very well said. You can use your own noodle to substitute for FexEx, L.L. Bean and Land’s End in this debate. Even though the Wall Street Journal has identified me as a “high-ranking executive” (see blog entry from April 3, 2006), Mr. Notebaert really is a high-ranking executive and has chosen his analogies and words more carefully than I in attempting to define the net neutrality debate. Must be the reason he is the CEO and I am not…yet. : )
Today, I was talking to Robert Pepper, former long-time FCC’er and current Cisco colleague, and he described Net Neutrality as a “false choice.” The way the debate has currently been framed has it as an all or nothing scenario, i.e. you need to regulate or legislate or, the alternative, consumers get it in the shorts. This is just patently false. It is also too bad that some in this debate are trying to make this consumers vs. businesses. Do you really think that the big businesses who are arguing to legislate net neutrality have the best interests of consumers in mind? Sure they do…as long as it also makes them a buck. Our argument has been give to everybody access to legal appications on the internet but to allow providers to optimize the consumer experience, much like cell phone companies do. Let me ‘splain: If you only want to talk a little bit, then you only pay a little bit. If you want to talk a lot, then you pay more. If you only use your phone at certain times during the day (i.e. nights or weekends) then you can get a package that provides for that as well. In my mind, this is all providers are asking for – flexibility to give the consumers the best experience.The OTT’s (over the top providers) are saying that the government must legislate or regulate to keep providers from BLOCKING access. How many times has this actually happened you might ask. Um, that would be “What is once, Alex?” That’s right. Once. And the FCC quickly acted on this ONE misstep by a provider. Leave well enough alone…nothing is being blocked…and if something is blocked then there is already a mechanism for the FCC to act.
SAN JOSE, CA – This is a very interesting quote from science fiction writer William Gibson which I heard on KQED’s California Report this morning as they were doing a profile on the California Institiute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (Cal IT2) at the University of California at San Diego. I encourage you to check out their site. It is definitely a nice feather in the hat of American innovation and the university system in California and the U.S.They are doing very cool, APPLICABLE technology projects there and it, of course, made me think of what we’re doing here at Cisco. Some we can talk about and, of course, some not so much.Some cool technology that we are currently showing internally is something I think is going to have a big impact. Can’t talk about it now, but I’ll leave you with this question: Will it revolutionize business travel? We will see, but as Mr. Gibson says, the future is here.So, based on this, here’s my new Cisco tagline co-opted from many sources: “Cisco: The Future of Telecommunications. Now.” I haven’t run that by marketing…and I haven’t quit my day job…but, that’s just out and out gold… : )
SAN JOSE, CA – Today, and recently, there has been a big focus on the immigration debate in the U.S….as well as in other developed nations. Since I’m in the U.S. and a little closer to this debate, I’m going to focus my thoughts on this side of the ponds…and less on amnesty or a worker program then on the highly-skilled and highly-educated workers that are needed to motor economies.In this “world is flat” or world 2.0 era, if you will, the jobs will go to where the best educated workforces are – and (commercial) Cisco provides the technologies that allows for anywhere, anytime, seamless communications. The U.S. still has great universities that attract the best talent around the world. Noted Silicon Valley venture capitalist and education advocate John Doerr has stated that he thinks that all advanced degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering or math (the so-called STEM majors) obtained by foreign nationals should have a green card attached to them. Those U.S. educated workers, he argues, should be encouraged to stay and contribute to the U.S. economy rather than being forced to go back to their home countries – where, by the way, there are more and more opportunities for them. Read More »