Thursday - Nov 10, 2011
Two stories have been playing out recently involving the expansion of broadband access and usage in the U.S. Let me touch on them both briefly and then discuss them together in further detail.
The potentially good:
On October 27 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to overhaul an antiquated telephone subsidy plan which first began in 1934. By spending the next six years transitioning the funds from the controversial Universal Service Fund, subsidies to telephone carriers will likely disappear in favor of a new Connect America Fund.
This new fund will go towards a vigorous expansion of “broadband build-out to the 18 million Americans living in rural areas who currently have no access to robust broadband infrastructure.” Though it’s incredibly early, cautious optimism is due, with an array of potential future benefits to some Americans.
The potentially not so good:
On November 9 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced the expansion of a pre-existing Comcast program that provides low-cost broadband Internet service to qualifying low-income households. Comcast’s “Internet Essentials” program was introduced on September 20 as part of an agreement with the FCC concerning its merger with NBC Universal. The newly-proposed expansion would involve most of the country’s major cable providers. All would adopt similar aspects of Comcast’s program in their own tailored-made programs, which wouldn’t receive an investment of federal funds.
There’s a hitch, however. The qualifications for the program would likely be so archaic that few U.S. residents would be affected positively for the long-term.
—–
There’s no doubt that the U.S. needs greater broadband expansion. The common refrain for years has been that the U.S. lags far behind other countries in adoption and infrastructure, with an FCC report earlier this year stating that broadband access is only getting marginally better compared to previous years. Recent news out of Alaska and Idaho has further emphasized the need for rural broadband access across the United States. The FCC is betting that the recently announced Connect America Fund will help. And to be honest, it’s difficult to imagine broadband access not being positively affected with the transferal of funds allocated to now ubiquitous phone access subsidies to more sparse Internet access subsidies. The fund would essentially have to be mismanaged, though it wouldn’t be a first.
Conservatives are already deriding the new fund, however. “By subsidizing rural broadband, the FCC is attempting to offset the additional costs of deploying technology to communities with low population density,” said Diane Katz and Luke Welch in a recent article on conservative mouthpiece The Foundry. “But those costs reflect the realities of rural life, and it is simply wrong to force city dwellers to pay for the choices made by rural residents.”
Despite their argument, data by the Pew Internet and American Life Project shows that broadband adoption in rural areas* has more or less kept pace with suburban and urban adoption rates since 2006. This would seem to indicate that broadband saturation hasn’t occurred yet in rural communities. The same research also showed that of those who don’t go online, 21 percent don’t do it because the price is prohibitive.** This leads me to talk about the second bit of news from the FCC dealing with low-cost broadband Internet service.
While it sounds like major cable providers offering $10 per month broadband service would go a long ways towards appeasing the previously mentioned 21 percent of non-users, the details reveal the stunt to add up to little more than a positive PR ploy, one that again fails to address what many view as the major problems with high prices: the lack of competition in the U.S. broadband industry. It’s likely the details of the participating providers’ low-cost service will be similar to Comcast’s requirements for eligibility, which are:
• must have at least one child receiving free school lunches through the National School Lunch Program
• must not be a current Comcast Internet subscriber and must not have been a subscriber within the last 90 days
• must not have an overdue Comcast bill or unreturned equipment
Sadly these requirements likely mean few will actually be able to take advantage, as Karl Bode notes for DSLReports.com:
“Once you’ve eliminated those who don’t qualify for the school lunch program, eliminated those who already have service (not uncommon even in poor homes), and eliminate those who also owe Comcast money (also obviously not uncommon in poor homes), how many customers will Comcast actually wind up having to serve at the $10 price point?”
Brian Stelter of The New York Times rightfully points out another aspect of the program that fails to address the long-term goals of the FCC. Stelter notes that for those who do qualify, the $10 price point will only be good for two years, leaving low-income customers to either discontinue their service or pay beyond their means to continue with the service.
“The price is akin to an on-ramp for new customers,” said Stetler, “with the hope being that they will decide to pay more for access once they have had it for a while.”
What seems strange here is the assumption that low-income households will suddenly have additional money to cover the price increase two years later. If the FCC is counting on wider broadband adoption to last beyond the two-year period in low-income households, I believe they’re being entirely overconfident.
These recent and any future tactics by the FCC to expand broadband service, if anything, will likely continue to draw ire from some Americans. Additional research by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (published in August 2010) has shown that 53% of Americans don’t think the government should meddle with the expansion of affordable broadband. Yet without government intervention, it’s difficult to imagine the problem of stifled broadband competition fixing itself. Rather, the FCC likely will need to gain a better understanding of the rural broadband picture and spend more time focusing on methods to encourage lower pricing. Such action won’t fully solve the complex issues surrounding the opposition to who foots the bill for broadband in areas of low population density, but it will at least bring greater legitimacy to its fervent push to catch up.
* See slide six of the hyperlinked slide show for the relevant information.
** See slide 21 of the hyperlinked slide show for the relevant information.
Photo via Gavin St. Ours, Flickr Creative Commons
Thursday - Oct 27, 2011
It’s easy to see how reading the daily headlines would lead someone to believe that incorporating technology into education is a vital maneuver in modern education reform. “Technology in the classroom aids in learning,” “Technology sparks learning,” and “Technology changing how students learn” are some of the resounding refrains heard across the news wires, praising the adoption of education technology.
But not everyone is buying into the idea, with some likening the infiltration of computers, tablets, and other mobile devices into the education sphere to a colorful Band-Aid on an unduly large problem.
Take for example the authors of a recently released National Education Policy Center report, one that paints a picture of the failings of online schools due to lack of oversight, lax accreditation, and greedy commercial and corporate interests. With “nearly one in every 50 students in the U.S.” obtaining all or some of their education from online sources in 2007, and 27 U.S. states hosting online schools (which get most of their content and services from five private companies), the report’s authors claim that more must be done to ensure the quality of online education, especially in the face of rapid ongoing change.
At the end of the report the authors make four key recommendations to state legislatures:
1. Authenticate the source of students’ work using in-person exams or more rigorous credentials.
2. Apply fiscal and instructional regulations to K-12 virtual schools, focusing for example on teacher certification status and adjusted accounting practices.
3. Conduct audits to ensure actual costs are reported, providing a more accurate funding system by the state.
4. Create and maintain a list of agencies that give accreditations to K-12 virtual schools, ensuring the accreditation process is vigorous.
The National Education Policy Center’s recommendations are welcomed by many in the education industry, including those who question whether the traditional classroom setting should be hastily abandoned for the virtual school.
“We are concerned that in their eagerness to embrace the virtual school model, policymakers and some educational leaders are overstating its success and ignoring the tremendous advantages a classroom environment provides for students,” said David R. Colburn, director of the Reubin Askew Institute, and Brian Dassler, KIPP Renaissance High School principal, in an opinion piece for the St. Petersburg Times.
“There is no question that technology can be a great asset to students with learning deficiencies and an excellent supplement to classroom learning for all students,” they said. “As the technology is refined and expanded, virtual learning may offer more substantial advantages to students and teachers.”
Despite their optimism, they went on to caution state legislatures and school policymakers about buying too deeply into the hyped promise of the online learning environment.
This line of thinking falls in stark contrast to the methodology of a school in the United States’ Silicon Valley, which is home to numerous technology corporations. Last week the New York Times highlighted the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of many such schools that questions the idea that technology will save the modern classroom.
Far from taking online classes, the Waldorf schools don’t even incorporate technology, focusing instead on more traditional low-tech instructional methods. The fundamental belief stated by the school is that kids will easily learn how to use technology later in life, so why not focus on the more human and engaging elements of personal teaching.
Granted, this sort of take on technology in education seems almost as extreme as one that endorses stuffing every bit of tech possible into a class. Like most things in our lives, approaching some sort of balance seems like a more reasonable approach. The authors of the NEPC report subtly preach this balance by offering realistic suggestions on how to better a growing online education industry, despite believing that same industry has “zero high-quality research evidence” of being an “adequate replacement for traditional face-to-face teaching and learning.”
Even higher education students like Kinsey Streib at Purdue University are being realistic about the role of technology in education.
“Admittedly, some technology inhibits the learning experience,” Streib recently told the Exponent. “However, it is a pertinent teaching tool in modern education.”
In the end, diving head-first into technological classroom solutions — or shunning them completely — doesn’t seem like an appropriate education solution. State legislatures should make some conservative reforms, while at the same time scientists should do more quality research on learning methodologies that include technology. From there we can evaluate in what ways educators can best integrate technology into the classroom and better gauge the effectiveness of privatized online education, all without tripping over ourselves in a mad dash to educational uncertainty.
Photo via popofatticus, Flickr Creative Commons
Wednesday - Mar 23, 2011
A hallmark of democracy is the ability to voice your concerns to public officials. Unfortunately, most city councils schedule meetings during the day, making it very inconvenient for citizens who work or are in school to testify. Sure, you can take some time off if you feel strongly enough about an issue and want to have your say. But is there a better way?
Yes, according to Reset San Francisco, a local organization that wants to open up local government. It’s a simple idea: Since almost everyone these days has access to the Internet and a video camera, let citizens submit video comments to public hearings via YouTube.
To prevent hearings from turning into mini film festivals, organizers have proposed some ground rules:
“We think the videos should be submitted by San Franciscans only. They should be two minutes. And at the beginning, we should have ten minutes of YouTube Testimony to see how it works.
We could make it social. So if more than five videos are submitted, then the videos with the most ‘likes’ would be played.”
Reset San Francisco is in the process of gathering signatures on a petition, which I assume will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco’s version of a city council. Although the city prides itself on its technological progressiveness, politicians, being who they are, will undoubtedly find some fault with this idea. After all, this is a very contentious city.
What problems do you foresee with this plan? Do you think video testimony would work in your town? Would you submit a video to a hearing?
