The administration's cloud computing initiative is getting started immediately, at least in small measure, on the brand-new Apps.gov Web site.
(Credit: Apps.gov)MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--The Obama administration on Tuesday announced a far-reaching and long-term cloud computing policy intended to cut costs on infrastructure and reduce the environmental impact of government computing systems.
Speaking at NASA's Ames Research Center here, federal CIO Vivek Kundra unveiled the administration's first formal efforts to roll out a broad system designed to leverage existing infrastructure and in the process, slash federal spending on information technology, especially expensive data centers.
According to Kundra, the federal government today has an IT budget of $76 billion, of which more than $19 billion is spent on infrastructure alone. And within that system, he said, the government "has been building data center after data center," resulting in an environment in which the Department of Homeland Security alone, for example, has 23 data centers.
Obama administration CIO Vivek Kundra on Tuesday unveiled the government's new cloud computing initiative.
(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)All told, this has resulted in a doubling of federal energy consumption from 2000 to 2006. "We cannot continue on this trajectory," Kundra said.
That's why the administration is now committed to a policy of reducing infrastructure spending and instead, relying on existing systems, at least as much as is possible, given security considerations, Kundra said.
As an example of what's possible with cloud computing, Kundra pointed to a revamping of the General Services Administration's USA.gov site. Using a traditional approach to add scalability and flexibility, he said, it would have taken six months and cost the government $2.5 million a year. But by turning to a cloud computing approach, the upgrade took just a day and cost only $800,000 a year.
But while some of the benefits of the administration's cloud computing initiative are on display today--mainly at the brand new Apps.gov Web site--Kundra's presentation was short on specifics and vague about how long it may take the government to transition fully to its new paradigm.
Indeed, Kundra hinted that it could take as much as a decade to complete the cloud computing "journey."
Three-part initiative
While repeatedly referencing the realities that many government efforts must make allowances in their IT needs for security, Kundra argued strongly that in many other cases, there is little reason that federal agencies cannot turn to online resources for quick, easy, and cheap provisioning of applications.
As a result, the first major element of the initiative is the brand new Apps.gov site, a clearinghouse for business, social media, and productivity applications, as well as cloud IT services. To be sure, the site isn't fully functional yet. In fact, a brief survey of it resulted in a series of error messages. But it's evident that the administration hopes that for many agencies, the site will eventually be a one-stop shop for the kinds of services that to date have required extensive IT spending, and Kundra said he believes that some at the Department of Energy has already been using the site for some of its needs.
The second element of the effort, Kundra said, will be budgeting. For fiscal year 2010, the administration will be pushing cloud computing pilot projects, reflecting the effort's priority and hopes that many lightweight workflows can be moved into the cloud. For fiscal 2011, it will be issuing guidance to agencies throughout government.
Finally, the initiative will include policy planning and architecture that will be made up of centralized certifications, target architecture and security, privacy, and procurement concerns. Kundra said every effort will be made to ensure that data is protected and secure, and that whatever changes are made are "pragmatic and responsible."
Clearly, though, the administration has seen benefits in the way private industry uses cloud computing, and intends to mirror those benefits. Ultimately, he added, the idea is to make it simple for agencies to procure the applications they need. "Why should the government pay for and build infrastructure that may be available for free," Kundra said.
One inspiration, he explained, are advances the government has already seen in the streamlining of student aid application forms. The so-called FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) form is "more complicated" than the federal 1040 tax form, Kundra said. But in a joint effort between the IRS and the Department of Education, it has become possible with one click of a mouse button for IRS data to populate the FAFSA form, Kundra said, eliminating more than 70 questions and 20 screens.
That, then, should be the kind of thing that the government seeks to do across the board, ultimately delivering large savings to taxpayers and significantly reducing the environmental impact of government IT systems.
First, though, the FCC must write the rules dictating how that spectrum will be used by the auction winner. That means (as things historically go at the Commission) mediating between several powerhouse companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Google who really want to get their paws on this money-making resource. If they're lucky, a little start-up or even consumers will have a voice in the rulemaking.
Wait a minute. Google? Aren't they an Internet search company? Since when do they want to be a wireless company like Verizon and AT&T?
Well, Google is really messing up the plans the good old boys had for winning this auction and keeping the spectrum all for themselves with very few restrictions on who they can restrict from using it in a restrictive manner. And, gosh darnit, Google has so much money and such a brand name and so much money and so many new lobbyists and so much money that they might screw around with the way things are supposed to work.
Google wants the FCC to make at least part of the spectrum available to anyone who wants to use it -- "open access". It's sort of the net neutrality fight for wireless.
The Commission, which oversees the nation's telecom, broadcast, cable, and satellite industries, decides who gets to use our publicly-owned airwaves and for what. So, they tell the radio and TV stations what channels to use, the military and police what frequencies are theirs, and the wireless phone companies where to provide their services. Now that broadcast TV stations have migrated to high definition frequencies, their old analog channels are available for other uses.
What does Google want to do? For starters, they want to offer $4.6 billion as an opening bid. Then, they want the FCC to require that the auction winner:
1. allow any wireless handset, not just the ones the wireless carrier allows you to buy, to work on the new spectrum; and
2. make capacity available on a wholesale basis to allow third-parties and other carriers to use it.
So, as any good FCC would do, they are going to split the spectrum baby (possibly ignoring consumers, fire & police, and start-ups).
On Tuesday before Congress, the Commission's chairman, Kevin Martin, said that he's OK with Google's #1 but not with #2.
Of course, Google complains that if they can't get everything they want, they're taking their $4.6 billion (give or take a couple of million) and going home. Is this a Google negotiating bluff or a promise?
Chairman Martin said, "Google is upset about the lack of inclusion of a wholesale requirement," just as others were upset about the open device rule.
The FCC should decide on final rules for the use of this spectrum in the next week or two, so stay tuned.
By the way, where's Apple and Steve Jobs' I-Phone in all this?
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second ranking Democrat in the U.S. Senate leadership, has opened the virtual doors of law writing to Internet citizens. This is a compelling idea as the Internet continues to find ways to democratize information and support the flattening of the political process in our country.
The senator writes in OpenLeft.com, the new project hosting this:
"Today I'm writing to invite you to participate in an experiment--an interactive approach to drafting legislation on one of the most significant public policy questions today: What should be America's national broadband strategy?"
One of the new Web site's leaders describes the idea of online legislation this way:
"Legislating is often known as a sausage factory, or a contest of interests done in private...a lot of the negative impressions of our lawmaking bodies comes from the secrecy of the process. With the Internet, we can put everyone and every lobbyist on a level playing field, and have a genuinely open contest of ideas."
It's doubtful that the Web will put every citizen on a level-playing field with the legions of professional congressional staff whose job is to study an issue and craft legislation with their elected bosses. It's doubtful, actually, that we would want avocation to play an equal role with vocation in this arena. It's also difficult to see how the thousands of full-time lobbyists in D.C., many of whom represent very powerful and well-funded corporations, will be outdone by part-time online activists.
Yet, even if this OpenLeft effort does not create equality, opening up the legislative process even a little bit can make a difference in D.C.
Happily, the Internet, as the CNN/YouTube debates demonstrate, continues to provide new tools for Americans to do politics in the most old-fashioned way--by participating.
Stay tuned.
There's a tremendous amount of attention focused on whether the Federal Communication Commission's September auction of new wireless spectrum in the 700 MHz band will be "open access," available to many mobile providers and applications, or be limited to whatever the auction winner wants to do with it.
There is also an important public safety issue in this debate that is not getting as much attention. That is whether some of this valuable wireless real estate should be reserved by the FCC for our first responders--the people who drive our ambulances, show up for fires, and are around to solve and prevent crimes.
Our police officers, firefighters, and public safety workers deserve an integrated communications network so they can talk to each other. Remember when police and firefighters were unable to effectively communicate in the middle of the September 11 disaster? Firefighters' radios failed, and many could not contact their brothers and sisters in the NYPD. The disaster was worse because of it.
The FCC plans to decide in the next week or two what rules will apply to the winners of the upcoming auction. CNN describes the public safety rule this way: "(It would) combine some spectrum acquired through the auction with some that will be controlled by public safety to build a broadband wireless network for use by the country's fire, police and emergency services workers."
Anything wrong with that, in the midst of all the money that the auction winner stands to make on commercial uses of these airwaves? Write, call, or mail FCC Chairman Kevin Martin with you views. As an FCC veteran, I can tell you that these communications matter and that the big corporate interests are not short on expressing their own views.
Chairman Kevin Martin
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Phone: 202.418.1000
Fax: 202-418-2801
Reference: WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 06-169, and 96-86; PS Docket No. 06-229
- - -
News stories:
CNET News.com: Unlock the cell phone? It's a high-stakes debate
CNN: FCC Draft Auction Rules A Win For Google, Hi-Tech Industry
KQED Radio's Forum: Net Neutrality
We have just two rules: We embrace the spirit of civil disagreement and we decline to publish unacceptable content. Specifically:
* BlogHer embraces the spirit of civil disagreement.
As a Web site devoted to creating an opportunity for all kinds of women bloggers and their friends to seek greater exposure, education and community, we agree to agree and to disagree-as strongly as need be-without crossing the boundaries into unacceptable content (see below).
* BlogHer declines to publish unacceptable content.
Everything published on the BlogHer Network is content: Your posts, comments, forum messages, poll responses, audio, video, text, images, you name it. We embrace your diversity of opinions and values(see above) but we insist that your content may not include anything unacceptable.
We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked that is:
o Being used to abuse, harass, stalk or threaten a person or persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to tell sometimes whether the debate over stem cell research is about politics, religion, ideology, or science. Many folks might believe that this is a Democratic-Republican thing because of the fight that went on in Congress and the White House. It ended with Bush issuing his second veto of federal funding for such research. It's not entirely clear, however, based on polling among the American people and votes taken in Congress that stem cell research is a Republican-Democratic thing.
What's the answer then? Are those little stem cells, who promise to give us some help in curing diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, blue or red?
BLUE! George Bush's second veto sure makes it look like a partisan issue. After all, he's the biggest, baddest Republican going. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership in Congress fought hard for the legislation and even used it as a powerful argument for throwing the Republicans out of power during the 2006 congressional elections.
RED! Wait just a minute, you lovers of the partisan divide. Some of the Republicans who want to replace Bush in the Oval Office, notably Senator John McCain and former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani back the expansion of federal funding for such research. (A future "tax and stem" Republican in the White House, you say?)
REDDER! There were also Republicans in Congress who supported federal funding when the House voted 247-176 for passage following a Senate pro-vote of 63-34. And what about the wife of the ultimate of ultimate Republicans, Mrs. Ronald Reagan, who openly campaigns for federal funding?
NO, NO, NO. I'M GONNA HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL I TURN ... Despite some Republican support in Congress, however, a majority of the GOP's senators and congressmen voted against federal funding for research. Moreover, public polling shows that only 49% of Republicans in the U.S . support federal funding.
THE TRUTH: STEM CELLS DON'T LIKE POLITICS. Here's the reality. A vast majority of Americans -- almost 70% -- support stem cell research. This includes Democrats, Independents, and almost half of Republicans. Sixty percent favor loosening the current Bush-imposed restrictions on federal funding, something the legislation would have done if it became law. This support has been consistently high since 2001.
Where there is a separation comes from the most socially conservative Americans, Bush included, and those Republicans who oppose federal funding for most things generally. Some would argue (that would include me) that this is not a Republican or Democratic thing, but an ideological, even anti-science, approach to public policy. Nonetheless, the political realities will make the fight appear more partisan than it really is. The Democrats will continue to use opposition among very conservative Republicans for electoral advantages by attempting to paint the entire GOP with a backwoods brush, and the Republicans will try to rally their most loyal base voters with vetoes and congressional votes.
At the end of the day, though, most Americans are not really that divided over federal funding for stem cell research. They support it. This means those stem cells free to cast their ballots for the best man, woman, or embryo ... no matter what political party he or she comes from.
- prev
- 1
- next
