US/ND-4: week four
week four
calvin branche (cbranche@innet.com)
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:34:17 -0400
As I am reading responses to questions I am struck again by the idea that
districts and / or regions should have a coordinated plan, and that this
plan should include schools, libraries, health agencies, and PEG access
operations (assuming that the area has one).
By coordinating objectives, and bearing in mind that state/ federal
objectives should also be included, of those groups we might have a better
idea of "what is needed" prior to finding out "how" to provide it.
When it comes to the hardware component I think that capacity, training,
future funding, future directions, a coordinated and uniform technology
(again, note the state/federal plans since there may be application for
state-wide networking) should be part of a plan.
I don't think that it is simplistic to take a very large view of
telecommunications services and universal funding as plans are being made
by the FCC.
And I don't think that the idea of fostering competition under the Act
should come before the idea of coordination. No easy advances will be made
from the practical point of view if the former is the case.
Competition implies very strongly that the bottom line is money, whereas
the idea of coordination implies that "the public interest" is uppermost in
the scale of things.
It never ceases to amaze me that the "philosophy" of a cause (in this
case, the fair application of Universal Service Funding) winds up being an
"also-ran" when the carrot of money is dangled in front of us. Too late
someone asks: "Now, what was it we were trying to do ?"
It may be that if there was a commonly accepted philosophy some of the
disparate arguments over what kind of system, what kind of equipment, what
kind of connection, who deserves what and why, might well be answered more
simply if everyone knew just what the objective was.
cal branche
chair, Telecomm. Comm.
Pasco County, Fl.