Tag Archives: technology

Inside the ‘Foundational’ Future Technologies of the World’s Largest Defense Company

Standard

Lockheed


“DEFENSE NEWS”

“Lockheed Martin is the world’s largest defense contractor, a company with more than $47 billion in revenue in 2016. 

Keoki Jackson, Lockheed’s chief technology officer, laid out to reporters the “foundational” technologies in which his firm will be investing over the next two to three decades.”


“The technologies fall into three broad categories, with the first being what Jackson called “strategic technology thread areas,” areas that “go across pretty much anything Lockheed Martin will do, all these domains whether from undersea to outer space.”

Included in that pot are autonomy, directed energy, signal processing and communications, sensor technology and exploitation, and advanced cybersecurity.

Usable directed energy weapons, long described in defense circles as just around the corner, are truly at a “tipping point”, according to Jackson, who said he is confident the company’s 60-kilowatt system, which has been used on a Stryker vehicle, can be scaled up to 150 kilowatts or more.

Although not initially part of his discussion, Jackson later acknowledged the company is working on hypersonic technology as well. “I do believe we’re on the verge of a revolution in hypersonics, and we are certainly committed to supporting our customers in their quest for high-speed strike capabilities,” he said.

The second pot involves enabling technologies ― areas where there is a “huge amount of investment” going on in universities and the commercial tech sector, Jackson explained.

These are areas where we look not just to develop specific capabilities in-house, but really to leverage these huge investments that are going on in the commercial world that are really advancing,” Jackson said, noting investments in these areas can be found anywhere from the financial sector to the agricultural world.

That pot includes data analytics and big data, advanced electronics, and advanced materials and manufacturing. This is where Lockheed Martin’s LM venture fund, a roughly $100 million pot of money for investing in outside tech companies, most comes into play.

Finally, there is the third pot, which is made up of emerging technologies that “are kind of longer range, they are iffier bets, they are higher risk.” Among those noted by Jackson in this pot were quantum computing, communications and cryptology, as well as synthetic biology.

“We’re in an age today where you can effectively design a living molecular machine, you can compile it using a set of tools that is very much like a program compiler in a programming language, and then you can auto-generate a set of DNA sequences,” Jackson said of the synthetic biology piece. “You can create molecular machines to build almost anything at that molecular level with molecular precision.”

But while predicting biological technology is going to “revolutionize” the aerospace world, Jackson admitted he‘s most excited about the potential from quantum technologies, particularly the potential impact on information sciences.

“I believe the next leap in information technology, computing and sensing is going to come out of the quantum world. It is going to enable us to solve computational problems that we just cannot address today. It’s going to enable us to design new materials that we don’t have any way to go after,” he said.

A 2015 study from the U.S. Air Force warned there is significantly more “hype” than reality around quantum tech, and Jackson was upfront that it may never pay off for Lockheed the way he hopes. But the potential of the technology is worth plunking down the research funding, including the procurement of an expensive D-Wave system.

“Some of this seems a little science fiction-y, but i will tell you we see it in labs in the U.S., in other countries, where you’re actually seeing multi-qubit kind of computation systems come together and some really interesting advances in communications and sensing,” he said.”

https://www.defensenews.com/show-reporter/ausa/2017/10/19/inside-the-foundational-future-technologies-of-the-worlds-largest-defense-company/

Advertisements

Techniques for Small Business Product/Services Development in Government Contracting

Standard
product_development

Image:  Getentrepreneurial.com

“SMALLTOFEDS” By Ken Larson

“INTRODUCTION

This article will suggest approaches in developing a product or service to the point where it can be marketed in the small business federal government contracting venue. Individuals usually succeed at such an endeavor by forming a company, separating it from their personal assets and then developing the company and its product(s)/service(s); even if it is only a one-person operation at the start.

There are techniques for small business to gain government participation in growing an idea into a company. Small Business Innovative Research and Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs in major federal agencies seek concepts that can be funded and developed into products the government needs. Here are some examples:

DOD SBIR/STTR Small Business Portal

National Institute of Health SBIR/STTR

Service contracting is another form of gaining entrance into the market, creating opportunities for introducing products by selling skilled labor under a government agency service contract or prime contractor teaming arrangement.

A GSA schedule affords a platform for products and services, but sales must have been achieved historically in the commercial or government markets before applying because GSA relies heavily the most recent 2-year pricing data in negotiating a schedule.

The government contracting product and services venue is competitive and requirements by federal agencies are often bundled into larger systems procurements. Therefore, it is necessary first to position a small enterprise and its product offerings before tapping the federal market for development support.

GENERAL OVERVIEW

Product entrepreneurs all face the same challenges. Those who succeed recognize they need to visualize themselves in the product development business, structuring an enterprise, generating a business plan, protecting intellectual property and then seeking industry partners and investors to bring the product to market.

In the process, copyrights, patents and royalty issues may come into play and development and distribution agreements are formed. Pricing is finalized based on cost and expense projections and competitive factors unique to the company as negotiation results are achieved with industry teaming partners, developers, manufacturers and distributors.

Financing is always a factor and can be achieved through loans or investors with a good business plan. The remainder of this article will address the basic elements of a framework within which to succeed with your product development for federal government contracting.

BUSINESS STRUCTURE

For the majority of individuals who are starting single person or no more than 2 or 3 person operations, a Limited Liability Company (LLC) registered with the state and with the federal government is recommended.

It will separate personal assets from company assets and protect them. When product or services sales begin generating revenue an LLC has many tax advantages. It can be registered as Sub Chapter ‘S’ for tax purposes and revenue and the expenses can be passed through to personal tax returns, paying no taxes as a company. The double taxation issue prevalent with many of the other types of incorporation is avoided with a Sub chapter “S” LLC. An LLC assists in limits your personal liability for debt and court judgments that may not fall in your favor.

Representing the business as a company allows pursuing financing as an enterprise. You can think of a creative name for your LLC and you can complete the articles of incorporation necessary to bring your enterprise into existence. The term, “LLC” must conclude the name of your company if you decide to form such an organization.

Instructions for registering in your state and federally with the IRS are available at your state web site and at the IRS site. You will receive tax and employer identification numbers by registering your business.

PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Patents and copyrights for your idea may ultimately protect you to a degree but the government agencies granting them have no enforcement arm so you must discover a violation yourself, retain a lawyer, bring a court proceeding against a violator and then hope to recover your costs and a reasonable settlement if you win.

The U.S. Patent System

Therefore, most of my clients use non-disclosure agreements (NDA’s) in dealing with other companies. Teaming is a practical fact of life in pursuing the larger federal government contracts.

You can download an NDA from the “References” Box Net Cube at the right margin of this site. Fill in the blanks as appropriate for a given exchange with outside individuals and companies. Before you meet to disclose details with a potential teaming company or investor, for instance, ask them to sign the document with you up front, put a serial number on it and reference the serial number and the agreement and date on any written materials you give to them.

After the meeting draft a short letter, documenting the minutes of the meeting, what was discussed and stating that the verbal disclosures and materials in the meeting are subject to the agreement and reference the agreement by number and date. Put an acknowledgment line on the letter and ask them to return a signed copy to you. This confirms their receipt of your proprietary information and their agreement to protect it in accordance with the NDA.

There are certain exceptions with regard to individuals or companies you may be dealing with on investing where you may not choose to use an NDA. Some Angel and Capital Investors are sensitive about being asked to sign them. You will have to trade their objections off against the value they represent to your company and conduct your risk analysis on a case-by-case basis.

For detail information asserting rights in technical data and software to government agencies and protecting intellectual property with other companies please see the following article:

Protecting Intellecutal Property

BUSINESS PLANNING

Visit the SBA website on business planning. There are major topics in the business planning process which, when addressed in a plan, will insure the success of your enterprise and assist you in determining and supporting the amount of funding you need. Such topics as marketing, advertising, competitor analysis and financing are covered there. You will find a presentation and examples that you can follow in improving your plan or in generating a plan if you do not have one. The link to the site is below:

Writing a Business Plan

Articles on strategic planning and developing your marketing plan are also at the “References” Box Net Cube at this site. They address evolving an operations vision for your enterprise showing its potential to present to a banker or to an investor.

Here is a site with free business plan samples:

Business Plan Samples

It may assist you in visualizing your own business growth to look at an example of how someone else addressed a given topic. I have learned from having worked with many new business owners that it is best to have you examine the material and continue your plan, contacting me with issues and questions as they occur.

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WHILE PLANNING

Locate teaming companies to further the objective that they would market your product as part of their offerings with your company licensing and sharing in the proceeds.

A business plan and the guidance above for its generation is the road map for developing ideas, laying out how to expand the sales of your product and researching your market to do so. It will also assist in developing pricing to considering the direct costs of product development, service implementation and distribution as well as the indirect costs of the enterprise itself (operating expenses).must be considered and financed.

A negotiation position for a given product will be driven by certain strategic factors:

1. Does a developer or teaming partner have a strong but realistic incentive to actively make the product a part of the marketplace?

2. Does market research indicate the idea will have strong sales volume once it is developed and distributed?

3. How much will a prospective teaming partner or investor have to invest in the product to get it to market? Does the product require testing?

4. Which is the better deal? Is it better to receive a 7% royalty on $5,000 worth of sales or a 1% royalty on $500,000 of sales? Even though 1% does not sound too impressive, of course it’s the better choice in this example.

A negotiation position should be based on support by for the argument that a concept will experience a certain level of sales and the royalty should be based on a % of estimated end user volume sales, discounted for the investment that the developer and distributor must make to get it to market.

The royalty should be outside of the distributor cost breakdown and the end user cost breakdown. It is simply a deductive factor the manufacturer will have to introduce into their profit equation after the costs have been tabulated. They should not view royalties as a cost factor; they should view them as a share of the profit on the total estimated sales.

Chances of succeeding with a negotiation with a developer and/or distributor are increased by showing understand the prospective market for the product and drawing some comparisons between the product and other similar successful products.

Naturally there will be some give and take with the other side about estimated costs to get the product to market. Be forthright in acknowledging their investment but also support a position with some research and comparative data on the product potential.

Lastly, settle on a % of the end user sales volume based on an estimate to which is agreed with the other party and insures that the purchase agreement for royalties entitles the agreed upon % on all future sales.

FINANCING

The SBA assists prospective business owners in completing sound business plans, which can then be presented to a banker in applying for financial assistance.

In the event that 2 banking institutions deny a loan application, a candidate can apply to the SBA for a loan guarantee that may assist in achieving a loan, since it would back up the application to a bank.

Loan officers are interested in a business plan to get a view of the business future and place a value on products and services based on the market, the competition, the sales projections, costs, expenses and profit expectations. The link to the SBA loan guarantee program is below:

SBA Loans and Grants

Veterans have access to small business loans via the Patriot express program:

Patriot Express Program

ANGEL AND CAPITAL INVESTORS

Angel and private investors have two prominent characteristics:

(A) They want a high return on investment (ROI)

(B) They typically want a great deal of control of the operation.

According to the Colorado Capital Alliance, surveys of angel investors show that:

1. Angels are seeking companies with high growth potential, proven management and sufficient information about the company, its management team, and its market to be able to assess a company’s value.

2. On average, Angels expect 10 to 15 percent above of the S&P 500 return on equity.

3. Typically, Angels invest in companies seeking between $50,000 and $1,000,000.

4. Angels generally prefer to finance manufacturing or product-oriented ventures, especially in the high-tech fields.

5. On average, Angels are 47 years old, have a postgraduate degree, and management experience in an entrepreneurial venture.

An angel investor may ask for at least ten to twenty times return in just five years. For many angel investors, it’s not just about the money; they want to actively participate in developing your business. They want to act as a mentor and sometimes even to take an active role in managing the company. This often translates into the angel investor having a seat on the company Board of Directors.

Angels are also highly interested in an exit strategy from for a full return on their investment in your business. The closest thing to it is an astute business plan that calls out the specifics of potential ROI, based on sound planning and analysis and addresses the following as possible exit strategies. Remember, investors are very aware that an exit strategy cannot be guaranteed. But they can be offered more than the wishful thinking that an IPO will occur in three years.

It is always good to have a lawyer involved in complex documents or in the development of documents. This will further protect a concept. A lawyer does not necessarily have to be present during the exchanges with prospective companies, but a lawyer review and comment on documents before they are signed.

SUMMARY

This article has conveyed preliminary steps for the small business in product development for the federal marketplace.

It should be noted that much of the process discussed in this article is the same for the commercial product development and a certain amount of commercial success is usually achieved before selling products in the government contracting venue. The exception to that rule is in highly technical product pursuits where the government is funding advanced development.

To consider non-profit grants and direct government contract funding potential please see the following article:

Grants Vs, Direct Government Contracts

Once a company is formed, a product platform established and a position to market a useful product to the federal government is achieved, please see the following articles at this site in developing a marketing plan

Registering Your Business For Government Grants and Contracts

Multiple Front Marketing

Should You Consider Small Business Governement Contracting?

Small Business Teaming

With careful structuring, planning and marketing, a product with potential can find its place in federal government contracting.”

Smalltofeds – Techniques for Product Development

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Ken Portrait

Ken Larson has over 40 years in the Military Industrial Complex. He is a veteran of 2 tours in the US Army Vietnam. Subsequently Ken spent over 30 years in federal government program and contract management and 10 years in small business consulting. As a Micro Mentor Volunteer Counselor, he assists many small businesses with their planning and operations processes. 

Big Data At Its Best – POGO Federal Contractor Misconduct Data Base

Standard

 

 

POGO Misconduct

THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT – POGO”

“We encourage you to visit our Federal Contractor Misconduct Database, which currently contains 412 resolved and 121 pending instances of workplace-related misconduct by the federal government’s largest contractors.

The government’s top vendors have paid a collective total of $2.7 billion in fines, judgments, and settlements since 1996 for a wide variety of labor violations, including discrimination, health and safety hazards, unpaid wages, and whistleblower retaliation.

The vast majority of the labor misconduct instances in our database did not involve the federal government. About 54 percent were lawsuits filed by private parties, while another 7 percent were enforcement actions by local, state, and foreign governments. One instance we recently added is KBR’s $3.75 million settlement of a lawsuit brought by construction workers who alleged the company stiffed them on wages and meal breaks at a California mining facility.

The Trump administration’s efforts to roll back worker protections and oversight of contractors’ business practices could further shrink the percentage of labor instances involving Uncle Sam in our database. Nonetheless, at least for now, federal enforcers are still on the job. A few weeks ago, the National Nuclear Security Administration hit National Security Technologies, the managing contractor of the Nevada Test Site, with a proposed $112,500 fine for violations of worker safety and health requirements. In May, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined Exxon Mobil $164,775 for violations related to a November 2016 Baton Rouge refinery explosion that injured four workers.

A list of all resolved and pending labor misconduct instances in our database can be found at this link.”

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2017/09/celebrate-labor-day-by-diving-into-contractor-misconduct-data.html

 

 

“Drone Warrior” – A Stunning First Hand Memoir

Standard
Amazon.com
GQ.com

After a careful review by the Intelligence Community for Publication, Drone Warrior has performed a stunning service, giving the reader a gut level feel for the U.S. War on Terror from a decorated soldier’s perspective. 

Those of us who served in Vietnam and similar conflicts since can totally relate to this masterpiece of  honesty.  

Brett Velicovich pulls no punches. The mental stress, teamwork, tragedy and after effects in this modern, technological killing process can be felt with every line.  The impact on the man himself and on those with whom he worked has not been spared in its detail and its effects. 

Having left the service, Brett is now involved in harnessing and controlling the technology for peaceful purposes like wildlife preservation and management.  Those of us who have made similar transitions applaud, commend and recommend the book and the man. 

Read it to become informed and consider the billions we are spending on this warfare today as well as the impact on our youth and our future. 

Drone Warrior

Army Turns To Industry For Network Overhaul

Standard
Army-command-post

Army Command Post

“BREAKING DEFENSE”

“The Army today has about 20 different software “baselines,” with different units and offices using inconsistent and often incompatible programs, often because their hardware is too old to handle anything better.

The resulting patchwork of networks is expensive to operate and difficult to secure against cyber attack. So the service wants to upgrade everyone to a single, consistent, up-to-date baseline within two years.

Want to sell information technology to the US Army? Then you need to write this down: Paul.A.Ostrowski.mil@mail.mil. That’s the email of the generalseeking industry’s input — historically something of a struggle for the service — as the Army reviews and overhauls its networks.

The Army’s long-term goal: a single unified network connecting everything from the home base to the battlefield, easy for the service to upgrade, easy for soldiers to use amidst the stress of combat, and hard for enemies to take down. The Army’s immediate question for industry: Can you build it?

Lt. Gen. Ostrowski, the director of the Army Acquisition Corps, wants you to write him if you want in on a series of roundtables the Army is holding with selected companies, hosted by the federally funded Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). One roundtable was personally led by the Army Chief of Staff, the hard-charging, wisecracking Gen. Mark Milley, who is taking a hands-on role in the review he launched in May.

“Who’s in charge? The Chief’s in charge…. he and the Secretary of the Army,” Ostrowski said at yesterday’s Association of the US Army conference on networks. Those top leaders have brought together the Army’s Chief Information Officer/G-6 (chief signals officer), the Army resourcing staff (G-8), the Training & Doctrine Command that brainstorms future warfare concepts and writes requirements for new systems, and the acquisition officials who buy them.

“What’s different is the involvement of the leadership,” said Army CIO Gary Wang, who’s leading the review for Gen. Milley. While the Pentagon bureaucracy does plenty of reviews, he told me, “oftentimes it’s delegated down to a much lower level.” This time, though, the severity of the Army’s “financial constraints” have gotten the Chief of Staff and Acting Army Secretary Robert Speer personally involved, Wang said.

There’s another reason Wang didn’t mention: the savage criticism in Congress of the Army’s flagship battlefield network, WIN-T. Gen. Milley himself said the network is too “fragile” and “vulnerable” for future battles against high-tech adversaries like Russia or China, because its transmissions are too easily detected and then jammed or hacked.

Beyond WIN-T

“WIN-T’s our current network,” Ostrowski said when I asked him about the system. “We’re an Army that has to fight tonight, and WIN-T will be very much part of that. Period. That gets that off the table.” Then he moved on to other topics — notably not saying what this review would mean for WIN-T in the future.

But this review goes well beyond WIN-T, Milley and Speer have emphasized. It covers all the Army’s networks, both for combat units and back-office business operations. The crucial issue, Ostrowski said, is “how do we simplify the network? Right now we have a lot of parts and pieces. We’ve gone out and bought a lot of stuff that’s incredible in terms of its capabilities. but we’ve got to simplify: We’ve got to make this soldier-intuitive; we’ve got to make it soldier-maintainable and soldier-operable.”

The Army today has about 20 different software “baselines,” with different units and offices using inconsistent and often incompatible programs, often because their hardware is too old to handle anything better. The resulting patchwork of networks is expensive to operate and difficult to secure against cyber attack. So the service wants to upgrade everyone to a single, consistent, up-to-date baseline within two years.

What’s more, cybersecurity in the narrow sense is not enough. The Army can’t just focus on hackers sending malicious code over the internet: It also has to worry about electronic warriors jamming, triangulating, or eavesdropping on radio transmissions. That’s a uniquely military problem. Yes, civilian mobile phones also rely on radio — that’s what “wireless” means — but only to reach the nearest cell tower, which is often plugged into fiber optic cable; battlefield wireless networks rely on long-distance radio, which is much more vulnerable.

A Daunting Task

So what does the Army want from its future network, and therefore from industry?

First and most fundamentally, Ostrowski told the AUSA conference, the review is driven by rapidly evolving threats, because the network needs to be ready to go to “fight and win our nation’s wars” against those threats. The Army must stand ready “to deploy rapidly, anywhere, anytime, to shape, prevent, and win, against any foe in any domain — domain being cyber, space, air, land, or maritime — and any environment — environment being megacity, desert, jungle, arctic.” So the network must be able to operate, and the soldiers using it must be able to reliably communicate, in all those conditions, under attack by any of those threats, and on the move, without stopping to set up radio antennas or lay fiber optic cables.

To that end, the network must be “simple and intuitive,” Ostrowski said, easy for soldiers to operate without extensive training or constant tweaking. Soldiers must be able to keep it running without relying on legions of industry Field Service Representatives (FSR), as was often the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The network must also be easy to upgrade as technology changes, without having to start the whole laborious procurement process over again, and without being locked in to one company’s intellectual property that no one firm can touch. “I will tell you up front, that if you’re going to bring proprietary solutions to the table, don’t come,” Ostrowski said. Instead, the network must be built on open standards, allowing any company to offer upgrades just as any company that meets Apple’s standards can sell apps for the iPhone.

Just as the network has to be open to different companies’ products, Ostrowski continued, “it has to be accessible to our allied partners,” allowing friendly nations’ networks to connect with ours.

Finally, the network must be secure against cyberattack, resilient to the damage of those attacks that do get through, and able to transmit its wireless signals in a way the enemy cannot easily detect. (The technical terms are Low Probability of Detection (LPD) and Low Probability of Intercept (LPI)).

This is a daunting list of desiderata, but engineers from both the Army and “numerous companies” are already “whiteboarding” how they would achieve them, Ostrowski said. “My name and number (are) up there,” he said, pointing to his slides. “I need you to let me know if you want to play.”

Who’s facilitating all this interaction? The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a federally funded research & development cooperation that Congress had already chartered to study the Army network, said Maj. Gen. Peter Gallagher, who works for CIO Wang as director of architecture, operations, networks, and space. Gallagher told me he doubted if he’d ever seen a review this intensive, adding the full-court outreach to industry was “something Gen. Milley personally directed.”

“We rely on industry for everything we do,” Gallagher said simply.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/army-chief-milley-turns-to-industry-for-network-overhaul/

 

 

 

DoD Is Buying Fewer Commercial Items. Oops!

Standard

DOD Fewer Commercial Items DIUX-poster

“BREAKING DEFENSE”

“One constant in the acquisition reform debate of the last two decades ……  “buy more commercial items in a commercial fashion, and do it quickly and cheaply.”

But a report by the Government Accountability Office analyzing a decade of the federal acquisition database finds that Pentagon’s purchase of commercial items has declined since 2007.

Now, nobody argued that you could buy F-35s or ships that way, but as competitors such as China and Russia fielded weapons in double-quick time and software and computer hardware became increasingly important to a weapon’s effectiveness, so did speeding up purchases and lowering their costs grew in importance.

To build bridges with the commercial sector and to ensure the military sped up its adoption of technology advances — especially in software and commercial IT — former Defense Secretary Ash Carter created the the Strategic Capabilities Office and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, fondly known as the DIUX. They were supposed to help accelerate the purchase of commercial technology, bolstered by a raft of legal and policy changes over the last decade.

“The data now supports what was long suspected — that the purchase of commercial items was declining. The question is why? The answer can likely be found in the overreaction to the perceived contracting abuses of of the Iraq War.

“While commercial items and the Iraq War shouldn’t be linked, they became so in the so-called ‘war on profits’ that was initiated early on in the Obama Administration,” Greenwalt argues. “In a typical overreaction applied to a different set of circumstances….the DOD bureaucracy, instead of going after bloated cost-type contracts and move to a more fixed-price, commercial-like, performance-based contracting approach, decided to do the opposite and reign in commercial item contracts where profit margins are traditionally higher.”

Part of the problem appears to be that Pentagon acquisition officials just don’t know much about buying commercially. To cope with that, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) created six Commercial Item Centers of Excellence staffed with engineers and price/cost analysts to advise contracting officers in how to determine what can be bought commercially.

“According to DCMA officials,” the GAO report says, “experts at these centers began reviewing cases in June 2016 and since then have examined 437 cases that contained approximately 2300 items. They recommended that the contracting officer make a determination that an item was commercial in 94 percent of the cases reviewed.”

But Greenwalt isn’t really optimistic, even though he pushed hard to make sure the acquisition community had the policy and legal tools to buy more commercially.

“The linkage between higher profits and higher risks and performance that occurs on commercial item contracts was forgotten in order to keep as many traditional cost-type programs (with somewhat reduced fees) going during a budgetary downturn,” he says. “Congress acted in the last two NDAAs to try and roll back this situation, but since none of the rules to implement new commercial item legislation have been enacted yet, it is doubtful we will see much improvement soon in the statistics.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/dod-is-buying-fewer-yes-fewer-commercial-items-oops/

 

The U.S. And North Korea – Warpath Paved With Rational Decisions?

Standard

Stratfor U.S. and N. Korea War

“STRATFOR”

“Neither wants war; each side strongly prefers an alternative path to resolve the core issues underlying the crisis.

Yet their differing strategic imperatives and desired end states leave little room for compromise.

War is rarely the first option for countries trying to preserve or enhance their strategic positions. The United States and North Korea alike would rather avoid a conflict on the Korean Peninsula, which would be complicated and costly for all parties involved.

As North Korea draws closer to achieving long-range missile capabilities, something it sees as a security guarantee, the United States faces mounting pressure to act. But as Washington tries to coerce North Korea to end its quest for more sophisticated arms, Pyongyang feels compelled to accelerate its nuclear weapons and missile development. Each country is merely acting to preserve its interests. But their interests are driving them closer to a physical confrontation.

The Rational Assumption

Geopolitics teaches us to assume rationality on the part of actors on the international stage. The assumption doesn’t suppose that individual leaders are somehow beyond the influence of emotion, misinformation or miscalculation. Rather it acknowledges the deeper forces at work, from the interactions of place and people that shape national characteristics and strategic culture to the systems and structures that develop in countries over time. No leader operates free of these constraints and compulsions. Though they still have leeway to shape their policies and actions, leaders, as individuals and as a collective group, do so within limits defined in large part by the environments in which they emerged. The rationality we assume from leaders is not universal; it is the product of their place and time under the influence of factors such as history, geography and economics.

The key, then, is to understand what guides the rationality of a country’s leadership, on an individual level and in the government as a whole. After all, no one individual rules a country, since no single person could extend power over an entire population without the help of intermediaries. And each layer of leadership adds another set of constraints to the exercise of power. Disagreements arise in governments and in the populations they preside over. But the forces that influence the options available to leaders are far larger than the concerns of the individual. It is an analyst’s job to understand and explain these factors, and a policymaker’s job to take them into account when considering how to achieve a desired outcome.

Even so, it is sometimes simpler in international relations to assume one’s adversaries are crazy. They don’t follow the desired path or react in the anticipated way, so they must be acting irrationally. If one makes the wrong assumptions of an adversary (or even of an ally), however, the response to a given action may be far from what was intended.

Of course, understanding the other side doesn’t guarantee the desired outcome, either. Irreconcilable differences in interests and perceptions of risk can get in the way of compromise. The most viable solution often is to constantly adjust one’s actions to manage these contradictions, even if they prove insurmountable. At times, though, the differences can be so intractable as to drive nations into conflict if each side’s pursuit of contrary interests leads to fear and insecurity for the other. Moves by one nation to constrain the threatening behavior it perceives from another then perpetuate the cycle of action and reaction. In the case of North Korea and the United States, the contradiction in their interests is growing ever starker as Pyongyang accelerates its nuclear weapons program and nears its goal of developing a missile capable of striking the continental United States.

As Pyongyang draws closer to the deliverable long-range nuclear weapon it has long pursued, Washington will be forced to decide whether to accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state and live with that reality or to take the necessary steps to disarm it.

A Mutual Misunderstanding

Misunderstandings, misapplied assumptions and mismatched goals have characterized relations between the United States and North Korea for decades. Washington expected — or at least hoped — that North Korea would collapse on its own under the force of economic and social pressures. The evaluation misjudged the country as the Asian equivalent of an Eastern Bloc state waiting for the Soviet Union’s demise to break free from the shackles of a foreign-imposed power structure. North Korea hasn’t collapsed. In fact, in times of trouble, its neighbors (and even the United States) have helped stabilize the government in Pyongyang for fear that the consequences of the country’s failure would be more dangerous than the risks entailed in its survival. North Korea, meanwhile, considered itself a fixture on the United States’ target list, a remnant of the Cold War that Washington was trying to toss on the ash heap of history.

The two have had many opportunities for some form of reconciliation over the years. Time and again, though, progress has run afoul of perceived threats, diverging commitments, changing priorities, domestic politics and even extraregional events. As Pyongyang draws closer to the deliverable long-range nuclear weapon it has long pursued, Washington will be forced to decide whether to accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state and live with that reality or to take the necessary steps to disarm it. The cost of action is high, but so is the perceived threat of inaction.”

STRATFOR – On a Warpath Paved With Rational Decisions

Kill The Open Internet and Wave Goodbye to Consumer Choice

Standard
kill net neutrality

Image: Dan Wasserman Tribune Media Services “The Week”

“WIRED”

“By Terrell McSweeny (@TMcSweenyFTC) a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and Jon Sallet (@jonsallet), the former general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Both are alumni of the antitrust division of the Department of Justice.”


“Since the Bush administration, both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs have emphasized that they would take action to protect the open internet, and they have done so.

An Open Internet has worked for America, creating a virtuous circle of innovation, trust, adoption, and further innovation. That circle should not be broken.

The Net Neutrality debate can seem complicated. But at its heart, the issue rests on two simple realities: First, for more than a decade, the status quo in the US has been an open internet that supports thriving innovation among websites, apps, and new digital services. Second, innovators and consumers are dependent on a few large broadband providers that serve as gatekeepers to the internet.

In 2015, the FCC adopted its Open Internet Order to guarantee that consumers aren’t blocked or manipulated when they use their broadband connections and ensure that competition from the internet isn’t artificially squelched. The two goals work hand in hand, because residential broadband connections are the pathways on which consumers travel to the modern world and through which the content and services of the internet reaches residential users.

Two years later the new majority at the FCC has announcedthat it intends to undo the 2015 order. That includes the prohibitions on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. But the FCC has also proposed eliminating the General Conduct rule, which protects competition.

The FCC would be mistaken to unravel a bipartisan approach that has worked. Since the Bush administration, both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs have emphasized that they would take action to protect the open internet, and they have done so. Like a police officer keeping a watchful eye at a busy intersection, the FCC’s presence has both stopped and deterred harm to consumers, competition, and innovation.

The threat to the open internet is real because competition in US broadband markets is limited, to the extent that it exists at all. About 90 million US households subscribe to the kind of broadband that runs on wires to their homes. The top four providers—two cable and two telecom—together claim three-quarters of all residential customers.

Of course, consumers can only choose among the broadband networks that reach them. Roughly 21 percent of US census blocs have no high-speed landline broadband provider, and 37 percent have only one option. This is no choice at all. For downloading data at 100 Mbps, 88 percent of the country has either no option or just one provider.

In rural America it’s much worse: More than half of rural census blocs have no choice of a high-speed broadband provider, which condemns them to slow speeds for any service they can get. Even where there are choices, the FCC has found that consumers face significant costs in switching between broadband providers. Moreover, broadband providers have the ability to target content creators selectively, making it harder for consumers to understand why they’re having trouble accessing certain content.

So it’s clear that most US consumers depend upon a few big players in order to access the internet. Therefore, the critical question is whether these companies have the incentive and ability to harm consumers and competition. That is, are they motivated to control what kinds of innovations come to consumers? And do they have the tools to do so? Both the FCC and the Department of Justice have recognized in recent proceedings that the answers are yes and yes.

Broadband providers have the power and the motivation to curb any competition that uses their networks in order to reach consumers. And we know that eliminating competition—via mergers, for example—risks consumers paying higher prices and receiving lower quality products and services. It doesn’t seem like a coincidence that the so-called new Golden Age of TV has flourished at a time when Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, and other services are producing popular, award-winning shows in direct competition with more established players.

Here’s why there’s a problem: The big broadband companies also supply video programming, which means that those firms’ revenues are directly threatened when consumers use their broadband connections to access competing video providers. The incentive for broadband companies to discriminate against online video providers will only grow stronger as the market becomes more competitive, as it has recently with the arrival of services that carry live television channels just like traditional cable operators.

When reviewing the proposed (and ultimately failed) merger of Comcast and TimeWarner Cable, economists at the Department of Justice concluded that the merged firm’s power would likely reduce competition in the video and broadband markets, leaving consumers with fewer choices, higher prices, and lower quality. And when the Department of Justice considered a proposed (and ultimately successful) merger of Charter Communications and TimeWarner Cable, it recognized the ability of cable and telephone companies to take action against new video competition and limited the new company’s ability to seek terms in programming contracts that could harm online video providers.

The 2015 Open Internet Order set forth 16 pages of economic and technological analysis to support the conclusion that “broadband providers (including mobile broadband providers) have the economic incentives and technical ability to engage in practices that pose a threat to Internet openness by harming other network providers, edge providers, and end users.”

Some argue that using traditional antitrust rules can get the same job done, and just as well. While the two of us both believe strongly in the importance of antitrust enforcement, these laws cannot duplicate the kind of prospective, industry-wide rules contained in the 2015 Open Internet Order.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy faced precisely this argument when he wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case upholding requirements that cable systems carry broadcast stations. He wrote that regulation could be preferred to antitrust because of “the considerable expense and delay inherent in antitrust litigation, and the great disparities in wealth and sophistication between [TV stations and cable systems],” as well as the burden of bringing a case, which would require “considerable expense and delay.” All of this is even more true in disputes between large broadband providers and their customers. That’s why open internet rules make sense: They let the industry know what is required while giving consumers an avenue of relief at the FCC that doesn’t require long and expensive antitrust litigation.

The economic facts are telling, but that’s not all. Consumers should be able to use their broadband connections to access the lawful content of their choosing. The FCC is reconsidering whether broadband providers should be given the new freedom to block or interfere with the ability of consumers to express their thoughts or to listen to the views they want to hear. And that threatens the kind of free speech on which America was built. In 1776, Thomas Paine didn’t need the permission of any other content creator or distributor to circulate Common Sense. But without rules prohibiting blocking, throttling, and the like, broadband providers would gain the power to limit what unpopular content flows over their networks—to the detriment of consumers and democracy. One challenger to the 2015 Open Internet Order argued exactly this to the DC Circuit: that the rules violated its right to block legal but unpopular content.

An Open Internet has worked for America, creating a virtuous circle of innovation, trust, adoption, and further innovation. That circle should not be broken.”

https://www.wired.com/story/kill-the-open-internet-and-wave-goodbye-to-consumer-choice/

 

 

 

 

Neutrality Matters

Standard
Net Neutrality CNN dot com

Image:  CNN.com

“WIRED”

“In a time when there are too few companies with too much power – we need net neutrality now more than ever.

Getting rid of Title II would lead to even more centralization, handing more power to the largest Internet companies while stifling competition and innovation.

Next month, Amazon, Netflix, and dozens of other companies and organizations will host a “day of action” aimed at saving net neutrality as we know it. The Federal Communications Commission, meanwhile, is on the verge of revoking its own authority to enforce net neutrality rules, and the country’s biggest telecommunications companies are cheering along. The future of the internet is on the line here, but it’s easy to be cynical about the conflict: What does it matter which set of giant corporations controls the internet?

Under the current net neutrality rules, broadband providers like Comcast and Charter, and wireless providers like AT&T and Verizon, can’t block or slow down your access to lawful content, nor can they create so-called “fast lanes” for content providers who are willing to pay extra. In other words, your internet provider can’t slow your Amazon Prime Video stream to a crawl so you’ll keep your Comcast cable plan, and your mobile carrier can’t stop you from using Microsoft’s Skype instead of your own Verizon cell phone minutes.

If the Trump administration gets its way and abolishes net neutrality, those broadband providers could privilege some content providers over others (for a price, of course). The broadband industry says it supports net neutrality in theory but opposes the FCC’s reclassification of internet providers as utility-like “Title II” providers, and that consumers have nothing to worry about. But it’s hard not to worry given that without Title II classification, the FCC wouldn’t actually be able to enforce its net neutrality rules. It might be less alarming if the internet were a level playing field with free and fair competition. But it’s not. At all.

If you want to search for anything online, you’ve got to go through Google or maybe Microsoft’s Bing. The updates your Facebook friends share are filtered through the company’s algorithms. The mobile apps you can find in your phone’s app store are selected by either Apple or Google. If you’re like most online shoppers, you’re mostly buying products sold by Amazon and its partners. Even with the current net neutrality laws there’s not enough competition—without them, there will be even less, which could stifle the growth and innovation that fuels the digital economy.

Fast lanes or other types of network discrimination could have a big impact on the countless independent websites and apps that already exist, many of which would have to cough up extra money to compete with the bigger competitors to reach audiences. Consider the examples of Netflix, Skype, and YouTube, all of which came of age during the mid-2000s when the FCC’s first net neutrality rules were in place. Had broadband providers been able to block videos streaming and internet-based phone calls in the early days, these companies may have seen their growth blocked by larger companies with deeper pockets. Instead, net neutrality rules allowed them to find their audiences and become the giants they are today, and without net neutrality, they could even potentially become the very start-up-killers that would’ve slowed or stopped their own earlier growth. Getting rid of net neutrality all but ensures that the next generation of internet companies won’t be able to compete with the internet giants.

The end of net neutrality could also have ranging implications for consumers. Amazon, Netflix, YouTube, and a handful of other services may dominate the online video market, but without net neutrality, broadband providers might try to make it more expensive to access popular streaming sites in an attempt to keep customers paying for expensive television packages. “[Net neutrality] protects consumers from having the cost of internet go up because they have to pay for fast lane tolls,” says Chris Lewis, vice president of the advocacy group Public Knowledge.

Lewis also points out that there are a few other consumer friendly protections in the FCC’s net neutrality rules. For example, the FCC rules require internet service providers to disclose information about the speed of their services, helping you find out whether you’re getting your money’s worth. They also force broadband providers to allow you to connect any device you like to your internet connection, so that your provider can’t force you to use a specific type of WiFi router, or tell you which Internet of Things gadgets you can or can’t use.

“The Internet is as awesome and diverse as it is thanks to the basic guiding principle of net neutrality,” says Evan Greer, campaign director for Fight for the Future, one of the main organizers of the net neutrality day of action, which will take place on July 12 and try to raise awareness about net neutrality across the web.”

https://www.wired.com/story/why-net-neutrality-matters-even-in-the-age-of-oligopoly/

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) To Offer Data to Industry for Partnerships

Standard
NGA Federal News Radio

NGA Headquarters – Image:  “Federal News Radio”

“BREAKING DEFENSE”

“The idea: offer companies chunks of the “wonderland” of unclassified NGA data so they can use them to build new products or to test algorithms key to their products.

It’s a bold and rare move by a large and largely secretive government agency.

The top two leaders of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Robert Cardillo and Susan Gordon, met with Anthony Vinci, now NGA’s director of plans and programs, to discuss ways to get more value from the agency’s incredibly valuable pools of data.

Using The Economist‘s description of data as the oil of today — the most valuable commodity in our economy — Vinci argued the agency must deploy it and help pay the American people back for the investment they have made in building the agency. If data is the new oil, Vinci said companies should “turn it into plastic,” adding value.

Cardillo told reporters would NGA would create a B corporation — in effect a non-profit government company — and hire an outsider to run it.

This, I think it’s fair to say, is not a slam dunk. Culturally, it will be challenging, Vinci admitted. “It’s straightforward, but it sort of breaks every rule we have in the IC (Intelligence Community).” The IC doesn’t share data and it doesn’t partner with outsiders, except for allied and friendly governments when needed.

This process may sidestep the whole process of generating a requirement for an intelligence system. “I don’t think that’s how problems can be solved any more,” Vinci said. The current system, which can be circumvented if an urgent need exists, is generally slow and restrictive, one that the Pentagon and the IC are increasingly trying to amend.

I spoke with three senior industry officials who listened to Vinci’s presentation and they were hopeful but cautious. All three said they thought the new effort could yield unexpected and useful returns on taxpayer’s investments in the data.

The biggest obstacle may be Congress. Although NGA would not be making money from the data sharing and it would not be releasing any data that could help our enemies, they would be sharing a government resource which voting taxpayers paid for and over which lawmakers have oversight. Whether the products resulting from the data would be licensed back to NGA, or allowed to generate profits for companies is all still to be determined.

“That’s part of what were trying to figure out Vinci told me,: “taxpayers paid for this data and how can we get that value back to them.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/nga-to-offer-data-to-industry-for-partnerships/