Further Amendment to Executive Order No. 12864

Background

Extension of Advisory Council

Before it was revoked, the 1995 executive order known as the "Further Amendment to Executive Order No. 12864" had a notable impact on the development and influence of the United States Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure. This council was initially established to advise on policies that would promote the development of the information superhighway, a key initiative during the Clinton Administration aimed at making advanced communication networks broadly accessible. By extending this council, the order provided a structured forum for stakeholders from government, private industry, and academia to collaborate on shaping the burgeoning internet landscape, ensuring that emerging technologies could roll out smoothly and with coordinated oversight.

Regulatory Impact

In regulatory terms, the extension of the council allowed continued deliberation and advice on critical policy issues without the need for new legislation or rulemaking. The council's extended timeframe facilitated ongoing feedback to federal agencies like the FCC and the Department of Commerce. These agencies were at the forefront of determining regulatory standards for telecommunications and internet services. The council's insights during this formative period helped inform standards and practices that supported equitable access to digital communication technologies, laying groundwork for future regulatory frameworks.

Social Policy Influence

On a social policy level, the existence of this council promoted the consideration of diverse voices in the policymaking process, which contributed to a tech landscape increasingly attentive to issues like the digital divide. By incorporating feedback from various sectors, including education and public advocacy groups, the council sought to ensure that policy recommendations regarding national information infrastructure encompassed broader societal concerns such as public access, privacy, and digital literacy. Thus, it facilitated policy recommendations that considered both technological advancement and social equity.

Reason for Revocation

Policy Redirection

The revocation of this executive order in 1997 may be viewed as part of a broader governmental realignment of priorities rather than a shift in ideology per se. As President Clinton's second term unfolded, his administration began to focus more intensively on harnessing internet growth for economic expansion rather than solely on governance structures for managing the digital transition. The decision to rescind the council's extension likely reflects the administration’s assessment that initial efforts had matured sufficiently for the private sector to lead.

Technological Evolution

By the late 1990s, the internet and related technologies had evolved rapidly, rendering some of the initial policy considerations obsolete and necessitating a different approach. The rapid advancements had begun to outpace the advisory capacity of such councils, leading to a shift towards public-private partnerships and quicker, more adaptive policy mechanisms. Revoking the order likely represented an adaptation to these changes, emphasizing agility over sustained bureaucratic oversight.

Market Dynamics

Furthermore, the revocation likely acknowledged the growing competency and influence of private sector technology giants who could champion further development and deployment of information infrastructure. The increasing capabilities of companies like Microsoft, IBM, and emerging internet firms were recognized as sufficient to address many challenges without needing extensive federal advisory processes. This change mirrored a broader economic ideology promoting deregulation and market-driven solutions prevalent during the Clinton years.

Administrative Efficiency

Lastly, streamlining administrative operations may have prompted the removal of the advisory council. The president's initiatives during his tenure included efforts to downsize and create more efficient governance structures. By eliminating what could be seen as redundant oversight, the administration aligned with its broader goals of governmental efficiency, reducing overlap, and removing advisory bodies whose contributions were perceived to have reached a plateau in terms of added value to policy processes.

Winners

Technology Corporations

The key beneficiaries of revoking this order were technology companies already poised to navigate the unregulated space of internet infrastructure development. Corporations such as Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, involved in providing software and server solutions, likely benefited from the reduced federal oversight. With the dismantling of the council, these entities faced fewer hoops and could be more innovative and aggressive, adapting quickly to bring new products and services to market without bureaucratic delay.

Entrepreneurs and Startups

Startups and entrepreneurs working at the cutting-edge of internet technologies also gained from the reduced advisory oversight. By lessening the emphasis on prolonged councils and advisory groups, the regulatory environment encouraged more entrepreneurial risk-taking and innovation. The competitive atmosphere fostered a dynamic startup culture, promoting the rapid introduction of new ideas and technologies that characterized the consequential digital age.

Private Sector R&D

Moreover, private sector research and development units thrived in an environment where they could innovate with less governmental intervention. Companies focused on tech R&D found it easier to push forward with experimental technologies and disruptive innovations without waiting for lengthy government advisement or approval processes. This deregulated atmosphere often led to quicker advances, ultimately benefiting a tech-savvy consumer base eager for new products and solutions.

Losers

Consumer Advocacy Groups

The revocation of the advisory council extension could be seen as a setback for consumer advocacy groups. These organizations often relied on such governmental platforms to ensure that a range of consumer protection issues, including privacy, digital rights, and equitable access to tech advancements, were adequately addressed. Without the formal advisory council space, presenting and resolving consumer concerns became more challenging, especially as commercial interests began to dominate discussions of information policy.

Rural and Underserved Communities

Rural and underserved communities, who stood to gain from more balanced federal oversight on infrastructure rollouts, might have been disadvantaged by this revocation. The potential for such a council to emphasize the needs of these communities in early-stage policy discussions provided a structured venue for advocating resource allocation aimed at bridging the digital divide. By revoking the council, their voices risked being eclipsed by more commercially favored projects focusing on urban and profitable areas.

Educational Institutions

Educational institutions, particularly those dependent on federal support to access advanced digital infrastructure, might also have lost a direct line to influence policy. The advisory council's dissolution signified the removal of a forum through which educational interests could harmonize their technology infrastructure needs with federal initiatives. This could have led to disparities in access to digital education tools, with decisions increasingly favoring regions or institutions with pre-existing robust networks.