A national information stimulus plan: How iPad-style tablets
could help educate millions and trim bureaucracy--not just be techno
toys for the D.C. elite
By David Rothman
The Washington elite is discovering the Apple iPad.
Vice President Joe Biden, White House aides, and gadget-loving members
of Congress are starting to tote the
same evil tablet that the President denounced as an info-overload
threat to young minds.
Might iPad-style technology in fact be a godsend for millions of
schoolchildren with obsolete textbooks? And could e-books benefit the
elderly, the disabled, and other library users, too, including U.S.
workers eager to upgrade job skills?
If nothing else, the iPad and similar machines could drive down library
costs per book. That could help keep reading alive in places like Hood
River County, Oregon, where the 98-year-old library system plans to close
for financial reasons--just one of many cash-strapped
U.S. libraries.
Along the way, as the technology's price declined, the mass automation
potential of the tablets could justify the cost of a national digital
library system. Such potential might count even more than the library
initiative itself. Call it a national information stimulus plan or NISP.
The stimulus would be in the form of more and better information, as
well as greater efficiencies in both the public and private sectors.
Politico's Erika Lovely recently
told how the iPad "may be the ultimate paper saver for an
institution that prints millions of pages a year and still piles huge
stacks of bills outside the House chamber every day." She quoted Rep.
Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican on an information-policy-related
subcommittee: "The thing is the bomb." The new BlackBerry for some on
the Hill? Meanwhile The
Washington Post says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
and some other Obama staffers use iPads, and that Apple tablets will
soon be standard for the power people of the West Wing.
Newspapers and magazines are among the "apps" in use on iPads in the
West Wing; and economic adviser Larry Summers has even started to
download e-books, including The Federalist Papers.
* * *
So what's the school-and-library angle? Well, think of the iPad and
similar devices as one way to help spark a greater interest in books and
other long texts that encourage sustained thought. Let's work harder to
bring books, not just videos and games, to The Screen.
Barack Obama is more comfortable with bits and bytes than were earlier
presidents, but in knocking iPad-style
machines as wicked distractions adding to young people's
information overload, he failed to allow for the positives. We can't
stop Americans students from watching YouTubes or playing video games
online. But technology can make it much easier for them to read books
that reflect their needs and interests and help them sort out the
facts.
Though iPaddish machines can display text crisply, just a fraction of
modern books are online now. Along with private bookstores and
commercial lending services, the public library model for e-books and
other content could at least help change that and maybe grow the number
of bookstore customers since reading would be a part of the routines of
more Americans. Storage and handling costs are minuscule compared to
those for paper books, which, along with other content, are just a
fraction of a typical library's operating budget (yes, librarians add
value, through such services as reference work, especially for the
machine-adverse). Price per book would be lower, potentially allowing a
much larger selection. E-books also would be easier on young backs and
could reach Butte just as easily as Bethesda, or at least provide one
more justification for decent cellular and broadband infrastructures.
DVDs and satellite-linked WiFi at public libraries, meanwhile, would be
alternatives for neglected rural areas.
Neighborhood libraries serve as community gathering places and for many
other reasons are preferable to digital collections alone. But a
national digital library system able to serve library-bereft
neighborhoods--and places like Hood River County, where recession-racked
voters voted down a referendum to finance brick-and-mortar
libraries--would be better than no library service at all. Local
librarians could still help choose books to be offered.
Other potential benefits would accrue from a well-stocked national
digital library system. Better-read voters will make wiser choices at
the polls. And some experts say, correctly
or not, that novels in particular can build empathy, a trait said
to be
increasingly rare in schools, politics and the rest of American
life. What's more, the same tablet hardware could make it easier to read
newspapers at length online, because of superior interfaces, either
through improved browsers or publication specific apps. Furthermore,
multimedia e-books and related tech could provide special benefits for
the people
with disabilities and help Americans learn new skills in fields
ranging from wind power to auto mechanics and culinary arts.
Imagine, too, the upside for older people who cannot drive or take the
bus to the library. And how about e-books as the new
large print? Definitely. This could be AARP catnip, then--not
merely the K-12 variety; if nothing else, keep in mind that iPad-style
machines can be simpler
for older people to use than the usual desktops.
Like far less versatile Kindles, iPads can even read e-books aloud to
the elderly and others. And on a large scale, the library model of
compensation could make it easier to address the tricky issues of
copyright and audio performance rights that have been bedeviling private
companies such as Amazon. The expanded market would harder for
recalcitrant content-providers to ignore.
* * *
But how to cost-justify a well-stocked national digital library system?
Multibillion-dollar savings and other benefits could result from
iPad-style technology in a number of ways, beyond the library world, if
the United States had a better information strategy. Simpler e-commerce
and tax forms--at local, state and national levels--are just a start.
Healthcare is the real paper dragon to slay, and the Americans might
even live longer if we acted. The National Institutes of Health and
other leading institutions could more effectively distribute medical
information to doctors and patients alike, and the sick could use the
same machines to monitor treatments and juggle around pills, not just
track the financial details.
Let's look, close up, at the paper dragon. When a Northern Virginia man
suffered a heart attack in September 2008, this AARP member felt as if
the healthcare industry had bullied him into becoming an
accountant--caught as he was between the hospital, the doctors and the
insurance company. Costs reached an outrageous $85,000. His wife's plan
from her job, far better than the typical one, covered all but a
fraction of that amount. But the paperwork ate up hours and hours that
he could better have devoted to his work and cardio exercises.
The right hardware and software would make the health system more
transparent to our friend the cardiac patient so hospitals and service
providers were less likely to try to squeeze him unfairly--no small
consideration if we remember that healthcare costs are among the leading
causes of personal bankruptcy and steal away so much of our national
wealth and income. Even as far back as 1999, the year studied by Harvard
and the Canadian researchers, U.S. healthcare paperwork amounted to an
estimated $1,059 per American
or $294.3 billion. A single-payer system would be wonderful, but
meanwhile the nightmare won't stop, wasting both money and time.
I know first-hand of the horrors here. You see, I'm the cardiac patient
from Northern Virginia, and remember mine is a best-case scenario or at
least somewhat close to it. The hospital itself was theoretically within
the insurance company's network for almost full coverage. But oh, the
loopholes! I still had to bargain with the surgeon's office and pay his
people thousands. Dozens and dozens of mailings beset me from the
insurance company and the other medical providers. I could have made a
career of the paperwork. Alas, the current default for some doctor's
offices and hospitals seems to be, "Let's see what we can get past the
insurance company, and if that won't work, then we'll lean on the
patient for the money--whether or not we're definitely right." I'd have
paid out hundreds and perhaps even thousands more if my wife and I had
not hung tough. While the Obama
health-care legislation was a milestone, it hardly ended the
possibility of a similar auditing nightmares should I suffer Heart
Attack II.
So why not use iPad-type machines and easy-to-use software closely tied
in with the devices? Then, for example, I could instantly show why an
insurance company rejected problematic items that the doctors' offices
or hospitals were now trying to get me to pay for.
Forget about just paper-based information or facts from separate
corporate Web sites with password hassles and other joys. Give me
instead a simple iPad-style application or a centralized Web-based
"dashboard" or maybe a choice, so I can more easily try to reconcile
information from different sources--and quote the source material in my
boilerplate e-mails to hospitals and insurers. Here's to the magic of
Web links and of facts consolidated via XML-based technology! Case
by case, let patients themselves play more of a role in policing our
health system, thereby lowering costs while actually taking up less of
their time, thanks to the right automation. On top of that, with more
automation at the patients' end, Americans would be more likely to
benefit from shingles vaccines and other medical offerings that millions
are foregoing now because of the paperwork
often required (insurance companies may force you to buy the drugs
and jump through the hoops for reimbursement for the $165+ often
charged).
The same dashboard could also help me retrieve drug information--I gulp
down five pills a day, a small number compared to some patients'--and
alert me to relevant medical news. Likewise it could display my health
records with plain English explanations from my physicians or others in
text and audio (perhaps recorded during doctors' visits). No longer
would patients have to depend so much on memory, their own notes, or
doctors' scrawls.
Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra admirably wants to open
up more government data to the citizenry, but we need to go further
and use the federal government as an enabler for individual Americans
to get a better grip on information about them in healthcare and other
key areas so we can all save money and perhaps on occasion our lives.
Do you really think that the healthcare and tech companies on their own
will give me everything I want and need, no matter which hospital or
doctor I visit for for treatment? No, corporate executives prefer to
balkanize markets or at least waste time duking it out to be the
standard even if this may deny the sick an easy, comprehensive solution.
I love Google on the whole and even own a tiny speck of stock in it as a
long-range retirement investment, but does Google or Oracle care about
my health and my pile of envelopes from doctors, hospitals and
insurance companies? Hardly. Beyond that, under the current system,
digital records can be grossly inaccurate, as a cancer-stricken user of
Google Health discovered when
Google startled him with a list of medical conditions he did not have.
The good news is that the Obama Administration wants to turn
NHIN-Direct (NHIN stands for National Health Information Network)
into full-fledged reality. The government is to oversee this platform
for doctors, hospitals and other
health-services providers and deal with such issues as
interconnectivity and technical compatibilities and even patient access
to records. But hopes are a long way from a working system and your
ability to download to your iPad your cardiologist's precise diagnosis
and advice.
Can such miracles actually happen? Actually at least one health
cooperative is already emailing some actionable health tips to
patients based
on their doctors' findings--no small help when the patients may
not immediately grasp all the nuances of orally delivered advise, and
when 70 percent of Medicare spending involves 10 percent of
patients in the program. This a shocking percentage even if you
consider the expenses related to patients near the ends of their lives.
If nothing else, imagine how much more effective drugs will be if taken
correctly. Easier to master than conventional desktops, touch-screen
tablets with the right software could make a major difference for the
elderly and perhaps shave a percentage or two off that 70 percent.
* * *
Healthcare is just one example of how a coherent and comprehensive
strategy for iPad-style machines and others could empower individual
Americans in new ways and improve life in areas besides literacy,
education, and training. Furthermore, the right information policy could
help build a constituency for the library initiative far beyond
teachers, librarians, and book-lovers. Here are suggestions that might
help.
ONE: FAIR TREATMENT OF CONTENT PROVIDERS
Allow for proper compensation for writers, America's besieged
publishers, and other providers of content for the national digital
library system, so that the quality of books and other offerings does
not decline. Of course, readers could still read and download newspapers
and magazines and non-library books without any tax money directly
involved. They would already have the right hardware--iPads and other
devices--in their hands.
TWO: PROPER PREPARATION OF TEACHERS AND LIBRARIANS
Prepare teachers adequately so that e-books and other online material
truly became part of courses. Librarians, too, could receive proper
training. No more reflexive, "Don't trust the Internet." Get good
material online in a systematic way and tell the teachers and librarians
where to look and how to use it and teach students to do the same.
President Obama, the threat isn't from information overload; rather it's
from out-of-touch librarians and teachers, many of them still
technophobic. Students could learn how to identify credible information
and tune out distractions like Twitter. What's more, iPad-style software
could come with a user-operated toggle to block Twitter notifications
and other interruptions of the moment when students were reading books.
THREE: MAKE THE DIGITAL LIBRARY SYSTEM EASY TO USE
Simplify the fiendishly
difficult steps that most library users must now endure to be able
to read e-books. One way would simplify digital rights management or
even come up with business models to do away with it entirely. A truly
librarian-run system could address these issues better than the
proprietary approaches now in use at the local and state levels.
Librarians are far, far from the ultimate interface designers, sometimes
evincing more of an eagerness to teach their online systems to users
than to simplify the technology for them. But a well-run national system
could use focus groups and other techniques to deal with issues like
DRM and interfaces in a standard way rather than forcing taxpayer-users
to cope with all of the current complexities.
FOUR: TAX CREDITS TO PROMOTE PURCHASE OF THE RIGHT TABLETS FOR
READING BOOKS AND OTHER LONG TEXTS
Give away book-friendly multiuse machines only to the poorest of the
poor, but for now promote their use among others via tax credits and
otherwise, even outside the business world. Besides, sooner or later,
iPad-type machines will go for $50 at Walmart, which in fact may start selling
iPads by the end of the year --the ultimate proof that this
technology isn't just for the wealthy and the D.C. and corporate elites
despite the current prices. Already the iPad is a hit among opinion
leaders in Springfield, Missouri, and considering that Apple has
moved some two million $499+ Pads since the machines hit the store
shelves in early April, I'm not surprised.
Future iPad-style machines will inevitably be cheaper, lighter, smaller
and more powerful and rugged than the current tablets, which, however,
are still a good start regardless of their prices and fragility (stay
tuned for more rugged machines using different screen technology).
The proposed program could help drive down prices somewhat from the
iPad's current ones by spurring demand, since producers could gear up
for a bigger market. Econo-tablets with WiFi are and will be appearing
at lower prices, but let's shrink the costs still more, while
maintaining iPad-level capabilities.
FIVE: OPEN TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNICAL STANDARDS TO DRIVE DOWN
COSTS
I've focused here on the iPad simply because it has caught on
so quickly and is a media darling. Don't expect iPad love to last
forever. Better machines will inevitably appear in the future.
Let's reduce expenses for everyone via open technology and tech
standards--to the maximum extent practical--and avoidance of a
one-vendor approach. Scads of companies should be able to compete
against Apple. Too, Americans need to be able to call up books and other
content with many different kinds of machines, including the
Kindle-style E Ink variety, as well as laptops and desktops of all
kinds. No one-gizmo-for-all madness, please, not when individual
preferences vary
so widely. Furthermore, a variety of hardware and software options
could be available for blind people and others with disabilities such as
dyslexia.
To address one issue, yes, you can prop up an iPad on a stand and use it
with an auxiliary wireless keyboard. But the proposed program could
encourage the use of built-in stands to simplify matters. Compatibility
with a mouse would also be nice; the iPad's touch interface is lousy for
long writing sessions, which can be torture if you're on a deadline but
must constantly reach for just the right part of the touch screen.
SIX: INTELLIGENT COST-JUSTIFICATION
Use cost-justification inside and outside government, as I've emphasized
above. Imagine all the forms, both government and private, that the
average American fills out. In effect, iPad-style technology could help
redirect wealth from paperwork to knowledge.
Granted, taxes might go up slightly to pay for the plan, but with our
Gross Domestic Product of some $14 trillion, the investment would be
trivial in context.
Say, we waited until costs per machine were down to $200-$250--almost
surely possible in the near future if suppliers minimize use of
proprietary technology. And let's say the
tax credit on 100 million devices amounted to $50 each for those
made with X percentage of domestic parts (a way to slightly reduce the
impact on the trade deficit). Or perhaps instead we would have income
limits and increase the break from $50 to $100. Either way, the total
direct costs to the U.S. Treasury would be $5 billion, plus maybe $1
billion to buy tablets for the very poorest of the poor. Just one
machine per household would be eligible for the credit. The idea isn't
to give everyone a free ride--rather to encourage widespread
participation. What's more, the figures here are not iron-clad. Perhaps
we could expand outright purchases for the poor in cases where it was
obvious they could benefit, maybe after they passed a simple test, not
that big a challenge for a device as easy as an iPad. Must so many
Americans continue to go to the library to perform even simple
paperwork?
The national digital library system and related costs such as
preparation for teachers and librarians might come in at another $5
billion per year, after the start-up, and shrink or grow from there in
accordance with the public's interests in various kinds of books and
other content. Lowering communications expenses, most Americans could
reach the library through their existing Net connections, and if need
be, reasonable surcharges could be imposed for use of videos and other
bandwidth-gobblers. Subsidies could go to the poor, especially those in
vocational training programs for which relevant books and other media
existed in the library. Needless to say, the library's communication
costs would be one more reason to turn over more of the spectrum to WiFi
or turbocharged variants.
Now let's say we spent an additional $10 billion in information-related
goods and services for government and kept up the pace The current
amount probably exceeds
$70 billion a year, and I'd like to allow for programming costs at
both the government and user ends. The $10 billion estimate may actually
be too high. In many and perhaps most cases, the software for the
public's individual machines could be developed privately and certified
by the federal government or by independent contractors--or simply
malware-checked if no security, health or safety reasons existed for
further precautions.
The grand total in the federal budget would be $21 billion a year
following a preparatory stage--a very imprecise, arbitrary, and hardly
scientific guestimate offered as a discussion starter, but still just a
faction of the several trillion that the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing. Even though much of the
$21-billion sum would be recurring, it would be tiny compared to the
burden of the wars or the $700-billion + expenses of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which already includes some tech-related
components. In the end we'd be spending many billions less on
bureaucracy in the public and private sectors. Remember, healthcare
paperwork alone costs hundreds of billions a year, so even a tiny
reduction would make a difference.
As the cost of the iPad-type machines declined, we could reduce the $5
billion cost of the tax breaks and divert more money to the library
system itself or else cut back on the tax burden if we chose not to
expand the library. Similarly, the related government automation costs
might go down with the right infrastructure in place and further
technological improvements.
Avoid creating a vast government infocracy to implement the technical
side of the plan. On both the library and cost-justification sides, farm
out much of the heavy lifting to companies like Google, Amazon and
Oracle--hiring them as contractors.
Private library companies such as the e-book-oriented OverDrive and NetLibrary and specialized
software suppliers like SirsiDynix could
also participate this way. But librarians, not individual companies,
should control the library system. If this approach could miraculously
preempt the proposed Google Books Settlement or at least help augment
it, I, for one, would be thrilled.
EIGHT: MAJOR ATTENTION PAID TO PRIVACY AND OTHER CYBERSECURITY
MATTERS
Respect privacy--maybe by way of an independent agency with long-term
funding that would administer databases with sensitive information.
Carefully overseen private companies could supply the actual storage
infrastructure.
Include robust cyber-security precautions, not just for the library but
also for e-commerce and protection of individual information, such as
the sensitive health-related variety, to reduce the privacy threat. The
recent leaking of a database with 114,000 iPad owners' email
adressesses and other sensitive information is one more indication
that the private sector alone can't deal with the threat. The Chinese
hacks of Google and other major U.S. companies are yet another. Security
breaches make this proposal more timely, not less.
For iPads or other devices to qualify for tax breaks, should Americans
have to use security-certified versions? That's a tricky issue, but one
worthy of discussion, although in my opinion it would be a bad idea to
make government-approved machines compulsory in all situations. But if
you were entrusting your bank information to technology, wouldn't you
want a secure system? Granted, the government itself can be a privacy
threat, but isn't this true even without the plan I'm proposing?
* * *
What's more, for reasons of economy and freedom of expression and
further privacy protections, I am not suggesting that the initiative
replace all bookstores and paper libraries or even that Washington pay
for all e-books and other content. But remember, we could start out
focused on educational and training materials and free public domain
books and grow gradually from there (with collection development
assistance and other participation from many local, state, and academic
librarians and educators, not just the Library of Congress).
Schools and libraries could still buy their own e-books and other items
rather than merely point people to those in the national collection. But
considering all the variations in educational spending between, say,
Beverly Hills and Watts, this program could help ease the "savage
inequalities" even if it it didn't include all content.
* * *
TeleRead is the name I've used in the past to describe this evolving
proposal and I've been refining it and beating the drums for it in various forms since
1992, having even suggested the use of iPad-style tablets in my
original article in Computerworld that year. The late William F.
Buckley, Jr., my political opposite, championed TeleRead in his
syndicated column. Maybe the time for the TeleRead/NISP approach has
finally come for the United States and many other countries. The
resultant improvements in our lives could be profound. Let books and
better jobs and leaner bureaucracies in the public and private sectors,
especially in healthcare--not just paperwork reduction among members of
the Washington elite--be "the bomb."
=====
David H. Rothman is reachable at davidrothman@pobox.com,
and another copy of this plan is or will be online at
davidrothman.com/nisp.html. An editor-writer in Alexandria, VA, Rothman founded TeleRead, the oldest
English-language website devoted to general-interest news and views on
e-books. TeleRead helped prod the e-book industry into developing the
ePub format standard now used on the iPad, Sony Reader, the Barnes &
Noble nook, and many other machines. Rothman is also the author of Copyright
and
K-12: Who Pays in the Network Era? (published by the U.S.
Department of Education during the Clinton Administration). He has
written The Silicon Jungle (Ballantine), The Complete
Laptop Computer Guide (St. Martin's) and four other books on
tech-related topics and contributed a TeleRead chapter to Scholarly
Publishing: The Electronic Frontier (MIT Press/ASIS). He is the
author of a recent novel, The Solomon Scandals.
This article is also available at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/06/guest-post-david-rothman-on-the-ipad-stimulus-plan/58539/
Below, a guest essay by David Rothman, of the Teleread site and the DC roman-a-clef
The Solomon Scandals.
David was one of the journalism world's earliest adopters of computers
and related technology. Since 1992, when many people (including me)
could barely imagine what a Kindle/Nook/iPad-style "e-reader" might be,
he has been analyzing these devices and their social, economic, and
political implications on his site.
Previously on this site about such implications here
and here.
By the way, he is running a nice Fake Tony Hayward diary
on his site.