I HAVE always wondered why there is a very long technology lag in this country, sometimes extending to about fifty years or more. Why does it take too long for technology to take root here from the time it was invented abroad?
Of course, there could be many answers to that question, but it seems to me now that the best answer is that more often than not, there are no policy frameworks that would encourage and govern the adoption of such technologies.
Not that I would want to make it sound too simplistic, but it seems that nowadays, it seems easier to acquire technologies than to create the policy frameworks that would make it possible to promote these locally.
Well, it could be said that money or the lack of money could be one of the reasons behind the technology lag, but then it could also be said that if there is a strong and proper policy framework behind a technology, the money would come sooner or later, because investors would always look for a legal basis before they would let go of their money.
But of course, I am only talking in a general sense, because technologies could actually succeed here there and everywhere even without a policy framework, driven only by market forces. However, that seems to be more of an exception rather than the rule, because more often than not, not too many technologies have succeeded purely because of market forces, the demand side that is.
“Internet of Things” (IOT) is a relative term, being relative to the term “Internet of People” (IOP). The legal fiction here is that IOP is fully developed, and now comes IOT as its adjunct or extension, being relatively new and not fully developed yet.
The other name for IOT is “Machine to Machine” (M2M), meaning to say machines commanding or instructing other machines. Of course, that is also just another legal fiction, because it is actually “people” who are creating the commands or instructions that are causing the machines to “talk” to each other. It could be said that the first real IOT device was a toaster invented or programmed by John Romkey, an appliance that could be turned on and off over the internet. It was introduced in 1990, about 27 years ago.
Three years later, in 1993, Quentin Stafford-Fraser and Paul Jardetsky created or invented a coffee pot that was used to monitor pot levels with an image that was being updated three times a minute, with the data sent to an in-premise server. The image and the data became viewable online when browsers became capable of viewing images over the internet.
Five years later, in 1998, Mark Weiser invented or constructed a water fountain outside his office whose flow and height mimicked the volume and price trends of the stock market.
Eventually, in 1999, the term IOT was coined by Kevin Ashton. Even if toasters, coffee pots and water fountains were really just simple devices, it was proven without doubt that indeed, machines could “talk” to other machines.
It only took about nine years for IOT to evolve from an idea to a technology with a widely accepted term, but up to now, 27 years later, the idea still has to take root in the Philippines. Assuming for the sake of argument that the first modern sensors arrived on our shores let’s say seven years ago, that would already show that the technology lag in the case of IOT in this country is about 20 years.
Going back to the subject of policy, there is no policy framework now of any kind that would or could enable the utilization of IOT technology here. Looking up ahead, there also seems to be no awareness or consciousness to create a policy framework of any kind for this technology.
As I see it, policy frameworks could be issued in the form of Memorandum Circulars (signed by Heads of agencies), Department Orders (signed by cabinet Secretaries), Executive Orders (signed by the President) and Republic Acts (laws passed by Congress).
As we have seen in the case of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte saw the wisdom of issuing an Executive Order in the meantime that the bill could not be passed as law. In the case of IOT, it seems that a Memorandum Circular and or a Department Order from the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) could be sufficient in the meantime that a law could not be passed.
As it looks now, it is still going to take a long time before Congress could pass a law that would recognize, legitimize and appropriate funds for IOT as a development tool. In the meantime, it seems that we have no other choice but to drive the market forces so that IOT could be adopted for commercial, industrial, agricultural and transportation purposes, among others.
Prior to that, it seems that the burden to promote the technology now belongs to the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in general, and the developers and providers of IOT in particular.
Perhaps as a parallel effort, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) could conduct a study that would show how IOT could benefit the economy as a result of new value added. The bottom line is to converge policy and technology for the good of all./PN
