News leaked Friday that Aneesh Chopra, Secretary of Technology for the Commonwealth of Virginia, has been appointed the first federal CTO. President Obama made the official announcement Saturday.

While working in Virginia, Chopra lead a highly successful effort to ramp up broadband deployment around the state, which Nancy Scola chronicled in her feature, “Broadband Done Right.” Creative public-private partnerships, as well as funds from the Virginia Tobacco Commission, fueled a variety of projects that wired rural areas from the mountains to the Chesapeake Bay.

In addition to creating opportunities for telework and more tech-based jobs, Chopra also focused on the importance of ubiquitious broadband for providing health care. From Scola’s article:

More critically, Chopra describes demanding medical- records software deployed at health centers serving Virginia’s neediest areas that can’t survive the dial-up link. “People are literally dying because they can’t get the broadband they need to run the software,” He explains. Cutting-edge software applications may demand enormous pipe, but today even successful surfing calls for 200Kbps.

For a thorough roundup of Chopra’s experience and qualifications (including an arguement why a former government official is a better choice here than a Silicon Valley veteran), see Tim O’Reilly’s post at O’Reilly Radar. His verdict: “Aneesh Chopra is a rock star.”

But as Mark Lloyd pointed out last week on Science Progress, before the government deploys billions to expand broadband infrastructure, it would be useful to have a working definition of what exactly we mean by the term. His recommendation is to design a process for an evolving definition that ensures consumers can send and receive high speed high-quality transmissions:

Let’s allow the experts to decide quickly what is broadband today, and then bring them back every two years and come up with another definition. Broadband delivery is bound to improve, so we should establish a process to recognize evolving standards to fit new technological realities. The one thing NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] should not do is what the FCC has been doing since 1996. It should not call broadband whatever is easiest for most telecommunications providers to achieve today.

In addition to incomplete definitions for communications technologies, there is also inadequate geographic information on broadband penetration across the country, a problem raised at a hearing last week. Lloyd examined the serious shortcomings of the data gathered by the NTIA last year, and noted that relying on industry numbers for access in large regions is problematic: “Declaring that access is accomplished when the industry reports that one entity in that zip-code has service does not tell us who has broadband. And 200 kilobits per second in one direction is not advanced telecommunications service.”

Effective, ubiquitous broadband is a crucial driver of economic growth, and without it, U.S. competitiveness suffers on the global stage, as these broadband rankings from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation indicate:

The importance of broadband to our nation’s future was clear during the first hearings on the matter, which were held on March 10 by NTIA and USDA to discuss how these funds would be spent. Many members of the public had to be turned away because even the overflow rooms of the cavernous Department of Commerce building where NTIA resides were inadequate to hold the crowd. If you had access to broadband you could watch and even submit questions to the meeting on line. Unfortunately, millions of Americans do not have access to a broadband service that would have allowed them to join in conversation with their government over the Internet.

The critical challenge facing NTIA and USDA, however, was apparent at the second meeting on March 19, where the two agencies sought to define broadband. I was asked to participate in that panel. We were not talking about funding, just the rules, which is why there were no overflow crowds.

The FCC’s website provides two descriptions of broadband. One description generally mirrors the broad capability standard Congress offered in 1996: “advanced communications systems capable of providing high-speed transmission of services such as data, voice, and video over the Internet and other networks.” Two important concepts are missing here that Congress included in its original legislation:

• Users should be able to receive and send high speed transmissions.
• The transmissions should be high quality.

Both of these distinctions are obviously very important for anyone using broadband.

The other description dates from the widely criticized compromise the Federal Communications Commission struck with the telecommunications industry in 1999, which defined broadband as “data transmission speeds exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) . . . in at least one direction.” If we stuck with that definition, it is not clear a citizen could effectively engage with the public panels on the broadband stimulus.

I suggested on the panel that Congress mostly got the broad definition correct in 1996, but that the FCC interpretation of 200 kbps in one direction was wrong then and has not gotten better with age. I argued that the role of government was to set policy and spur the telecommunications markets to speed deployment of the fastest broadband possible, and that while standards should evolve with time NTIA needed to set a hard speed target for what qualifies as a broadband service today.

I then recommended a process for NTIA to set that hard speed target. First it should determine the critical educational, health care and public safety applications, and then it should appoint a panel of independent engineers—perhaps the directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering at the National Science Foundation—to determine the speeds necessary for all Americans to manage these critical applications regardless of where they live and work.

Let’s allow the experts to decide quickly what is broadband today, and then bring them back every two years and come up with another definition. Broadband delivery is bound to improve, so we should establish a process to recognize evolving standards to fit new technological realities. The one thing NTIA should not do is what the FCC has been doing since 1996. It should not call broadband whatever is easiest for most telecommunications providers to achieve today.

The FCC, however, should be given credit for surveying telecommunications providers to collect information about speeds greater than 200 kbps, creating seven-speed tiers. This begins to allow us to understand the full range of speeds being deployed in the United States. Alas, seven-speed tiers did not prevent the FCC from reporting to Congress in the summer of 2008 that “broadband is being deployed to All Americans.” This was not at all supported by the evidence. More should be expected of our expert agencies.

Indeed, a month after the FCC assured Congress that broadband was being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis, the Pew Internet and American Life Project reported on a survey it conducted with about 1,200 people, noting that: “Some 55 percent of all adult Americans now have a high-speed internet connection at home.” That certainly debunks the FCC’s cheerful conclusion, but the bigger problem is the Pew interviewees had no real idea what kind of service they had except that it was better than dial-up.

In 2007, John Peha writing for Brookings Institution, reported that: “Roughly one-third of households in rural America cannot subscribe to broadband Internet services at any price.” And the Government Accountability Office says the federal government doesn’t know whether Native American households on tribal lands can access Internet service at any speed because no one has tracked this information. The fact is we don’t really know who has advanced telecommunications services in the United States because our information is just not good enough.

What we do know, despite a few dissenters, is our country is behind far too many of our global competitors in making available advanced telecommunications services. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation provides an excellent annual chart that shows why “the United States is behind in broadband deployment, speed and price . . . and its rank has been falling since 2001.”

While there is general agreement that the United States is behind many of our global competitors, it is difficult to agree on a course of action in the absence of hard data. As Senator Inouye (D-HI) has said, “We cannot manage what we do not measure.”

Seven billion dollars is a lot of money, but it is no where near enough money to ensure that all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications service. Here is what the $7 billion is designed to accomplish:

• The FCC will develop a broadband plan for the United States
• The Department of Agriculture with its $2.5 billion share of the broadband stimulus money will focus on broadband in rural America and expand the already substantial telecommunications support they provide to this largely overlooked part of our country
• The bulk of the money is going to NTIA to establish a Broadband Technology Opportunities Program to develop and expand broadband services to rural and underserved areas and improve access to broadband by public safety agencies. Of the $4.7 billion to NTIA, $250 million is dedicated to “innovative programs that encourage sustainable adoption of broadband services” and up to $350 million is designated for the development and maintenance of statewide broadband inventory maps.

This is a worthy division of labor, except that one of the most important goals of the stimulus funding for broadband is to create jobs—and soon. It is entirely possible, indeed it is very likely that before these statewide broadband maps are ready, before we have a good handle on where the need is greatest, and before we have a national plan, the money for innovation will be spent.

“Ready, Fire, Aim” is not good policy.

Many are convinced the Obama administration can do better than this. We hope when the FCC has developed our national broadband plan, and the NTIA has a strong sense of where truly advanced telecommunications services are, there will be useful lessons to draw on from this current round of funding. Those lessons should include how to best spend the stimulus money to promote high-speed, two-way broadband deployment that enables the use of health, education and public safety applications.

Then, by 2010, we will have a much better idea about how to get the United States back on track in deploying and upgrading our national telecommunications infrastructure.

Mark Lloyd is an affiliate professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a member of the board of advisors to Science Progress.

Ethically Challenged
One Quarter of Stem Cell Lines Eligible for Federal Funding Fail Ethics Guidelines
By Rick Weiss
An expert panel at Stanford University determined in July that nearly one quarter of the colonies of human embryonic stem cells that the Bush administration had approved as ethically derived and eligible for study with federal funds did not meet Stanford’s ethics standards.

Enormously Pathetic Agency
The Evisceration of the EPA
By Chris Mooney
There was a near-complete breakdown at our central environmental regulatory agency under the Bush administration. And that was just what things looked like in April.

The Halfway House Between Science and Secrets
An Interview With Bruce Schneier on Science and Security
By Jonathan Pfeiffer
A National Research Council report recognized that the 9/11 attacks provoked counter-productive security measures that stifle access to fruitful scientific research. Security expert Bruce Schneier talked with Science Progress about the science that makes us smarter and the security that makes us safer.

Minding Mental Minefields
How to Stockpile the Neuropharmacological Arsenal
By Rick Weiss
Another report from the National Research Council argued that the military should harness the power of neuroscience research to amplify the cognitive prowess of U.S. military personnel and make foreign soldiers, um, less smarter.

Plight of the Postdoc
Is Modern American Science Strangling Its Young Talents In the Cradle?
By Sheril Kirshenbaum
Colleges and universities are graduating more science and engineering PhDs, but diminishing opportunities are derailing young scientists from future careers as scientific leaders.

Hearts and Minds
Expelled Suggests Defenders of Evolution are Losing Them
By Chris Mooney
The successful right-wing documentary demonstrated that science needs a loud, accessible, entertaining, mass media response to creationist nonsense.

The Staggering Cyclone Nargis Catastrophe
A Disastrous Convergence of Variables
By Chris Mooney
The alarming death tolls from the storm were a product of poverty, poor infrastructure, and a negligent government. Better forecasting for the North Indian region would be a start for protecting citizens from future cyclones. Democracy in Burma probably wouldn’t hurt, either.

Manufactroversy
The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed
By Leah Ceccarelli
Contemporary rhetorical tactics designed to confuse politicians and the public about scientific issues are as old as antiquity. The methods are just as disingenuous 2,500 years after their invention.

Contraception Is the New Abortion
The Latest Right Wing Trend? Attack Birth Control
By Jessica Arons
An HHS rule was just the most recent attempt in a longstanding campaign by social conservatives to turn discomfort with abortion into opposition to contraception.

Ubiquity Requires Redundancy
The Case for Federal Investment in Broadband
By Mark Lloyd
The attacks of 9/11 and body blow of Hurricane Katrina highlight for all but the most doctrinaire advocates of free markets that there is an exceedingly strong case for direct government investment in the deployment of advanced telecommunications services to build a safe, strong, and resilient America.

Science Under Obama
Next Administration Would Chart a Dramatic New Course
By Chris Mooney
The day after the historic election, Mooney wrote that there’s much for scientists to like about Barack Obama’s plans for science policy. But, Mooney asked, will the president-elect make it a priority, and what about the money?

Wikipedia and the New Curriculum
Digital Literacy Is Knowing How We Store What We Know
By David Parry
Students and teachers alike must understand how systems of knowledge creation and archivization are changing. Encyclopedias are no longer static collections of facts and figures; they are living entities. Just check the entry on Global Warming. This article generated a spirited discussion on Science Progress and around the blogosphere.