US/ND-4: Aggregation of services
Aggregation of services
John Rademan (cradema@libby.litchpkeld.k12.az.us)
Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:19:07 +0000
This response reflects the archived comments of the Education & Library
Networks Coalition (EDLiNC See: "School Boards Association of"
listing) They said it better than I could.
1. How can schools and libraries share services with each other and
with other community groups?
> Guilford County, North Carolina, has equipped all of its schools with interactive,
> broadcast-quality distance learning facilities, connected all of its classrooms with fiber
> optics, and installed an OC-3 fiber line to link its network to the public switched
> network. Attendance rates are up, discipline problems are down, and the County has
> reduced staff travel and the busing of students for special classes.2
> In Union City, New Jersey, the introduction of computers and Internet access has led to
> marked improvement in the English language skills of the student body, 75% of whom
> do not speak English at home. The use of e-mail has encouraged students to develop
> their writing skills, the ease of on-line research has improved the quality of research
> projects, and standardized test scores have gone from well below the state average to
> above average. KickStart Report at 37.
> The State of Maryland has developed "Sailor," a state-wide telecommunications
> infrastructure connecting public libraries across the state and allowing patrons remote
> access. Every Maryland resident can now reach the Internet and information about state
> and local events, affairs, and resources with a local phone call. KickStart Report at 52.
> The Southeast Kansas Interactive Distance Learning Network operates a fiber optic
> network that can carry up to 16 channels of video simultaneously, and has been used to
> conduct an interactive town hall meeting with the area's Congressman by linking ten
> school sites. In addition to increasing the range of available courses, the network has
> been used for special programs such as video conferences between American and
> Russian students. See articles attached as Appendix C.
> Beaver High School and three other Oklahoma schools have established an interactive
> distance learning network that is also being used for weekly teacher training sessions.
> NSBA telephone survey.
> Approximately 200 public libraries now maintain World Wide Web sites, including the
> Alachua County Library District in Gainesville, Florida, the St. Charles City-County
> Library District in St. Peters, Missouri, and the Seattle Public Library in Seattle,
> Washington. By establishing Web sites, these libraries have extended their reach beyond
> their geographic boundaries and made their electronic holdings available to a new class
> of world-wide patrons.(Comments 4-10-96 pg.5-6)
> School- and Library-Based Networks Offer New and Enhanced
> Roles for Those Institutions as Learning Centers in Their
> Communities.
>
> The 1996 Act offers a mechanism for schools and libraries to strengthen their roles in their
> communities, by serving as access points to provide all citizens with affordable access to
> information.
>
> First, access to the Internet through schools and libraries -- or other access points such as
> community colleges and community centers -- can become a cost-effective way for the country to
> expand subscribership to all Americans, including those who cannot afford the proper
> equipment. Second, schools and libraries can become community hubs for those who do have
> the proper equipment. Parents can communicate better with teachers, and other residents can get
> quick, easy access to information about community events and local issues through community
> networks and local bulletin boards. Third, schools and libraries can address the peculiar
> problems of rural areas. K-12 schools, libraries, teachers, parents, and other citizens in these
> areas have to pay substantially more than their urban counterparts to reach on-line information
> services and the Internet. A school or library in Java, South Dakota, or Rochester, Vermont, for
> example, could become the access point for the entire community to reach on-line information
> without paying prohibitive long distance toll charges.(Comments, 4-10-96. p.7)
> F.Sharing of Facilities with Noneducational Users.
>
> The Commission should not take any action that would significantly restrict sharing of
> facilities. So long as a facility is being used primarily for educational purposes, it should
> be deemed to meet the requirements of the 1996 Act. Otherwise, innovative uses of
> technology and enhanced roles for schools and libraries could be stifled. Schools and
> libraries should remain free to share their networks with other entities in the community,
> and schools and libraries should not be prohibited from charging lab fees or user fees to
> defray expenses related to the use of a network. (Comments 4-10-96, pg.13)
> Second, permitting aggregation on the broadest possible basis will also promote competition.
> Allowing pooling of demand through liberal aggregation rules will make the provision of
> advanced services to remote areas more economically feasible, thus expanding the reach of the
> serving providers, and encouraging competitors to bid. (Reply to Comments 5-7-96 pg.2)
> 10. Should the resale prohibition in Section 254(h)(3) be construed to prohibit only the resale of services
> to the public for profit, and should it be construed so as to permit end-user cost based fees for services?
> Would construction in this manner facilitate community networks and/or aggregation of purchasing
> power?
>
> Answer: The resale prohibition should only apply to resale for profit, and should permit end-user
> cost-based fees for services. By interpreting the prohibition narrowly, the Commission would further
> support and encourage the development and proliferation of community and civic cooperatives by
> allowing the aggregation of purchasing power. The comments filed by the Lincoln Trail Libraries System
> describe a typical library cooperative, as found in several states:
>
> Lincoln Trail Libraries System is a state-sponsored organization serving
> the libraries of 116 members in East Central Illinois. Academic, public,
> school, and special libraries participate as members. Lincoln Trail member
> facilities are spread over approximately 250 buildings in a nine-county
> area. This area is largely rural. The median population served for participating
> school districts is 795, and the median size for participating public libraries
> is 3,042. The median budget of all participating libraries is $54,000,
> with some annual budgets falling below $10,000 per year.10
>
> This type of consortium -- which should, of course, include private schools -- allows individual entities to
> broaden and expand the services they offer to the public.
>
> Furthermore, the rules regarding resale should distinguish between the telecommunication facilities and
> services offered using those facilities. In its earlier comments, the Washington State Library suggested
> that:
>
> [T]he FCC should seriously consider separating the telecommunications mechanisms that
> make an electronically based service possible (the tool) from the
> service itself (the product) in applying the 'no resale' prohibition.
> For instance, a library may not resell its discounted access to its
> city government, but it may levy a fee for Internet classes, or setting
> up and maintaining an Internet account through the library, or for
> maintaining a web site for its unit of local government. Such an application
> would appear to satisfy the intent of the Telecommunications Act, but this
> distinction would be more easily known and understood by all concerned if the
> FCC clarifies it.11
>
>
> 11. If the answer to the first question in number 10 is "yes," should the discounts be available only for
> the traffic or network usage attributable to the educational entities that qualify for the Section 254
> discounts?
>
> Answer: One of the primary goals of the Act is to ensure that educational institutions and libraries have
> access to affordable telecommunications services. We believe that encouraging the growth of
> community-based consortia which include libraries and schools is one highly effective method of
> furthering this goal.
>
> These consortia further the goals of the Act in several different ways. The broad consortium approach to
> community networking enhances the educational potential of the network by including partners and
> resources that might not otherwise be available. By providing access to their resources, community
> network partners (such as universities, local government, and local businesses) amplify the educational
> benefits of the network above and beyond that which schools and libraries could provide on their own.
> For instance, consortia might provide all members with access to the resources of the local university
> library, as well as provide access to important information on local government.
>
> The Commission rules in this proceeding should encourage institutions to contribute their resources to the
> educational efforts of schools and libraries. In addition to the obvious educational benefits of these
> resources, access to this information can help build civic participation and interest by enabling all members
> of a consortium to access important information.
>
> Consortia also improve the ability of schools and libraries to get access to the sophisticated
> telecommunications services they need. Aggregate purchasing of services not only leads to lower prices
> for schools and libraries but also enables schools and libraries to pool the demand in areas where local
> providers might be reluctant to offer sophisticated telecommunications services. This aggregation of
> community demand has proven an effective method for attracting telecommunications services in many
> underserved communities across the country.
>
> Aggregation has also led in many cases to the purchasing of package deals which include services that,
> while furthering the telecommunications goals of the educational entities, might not be eligible for
> discounts under the Act. In these arrangements, schools are better able to serve their constituencies
> because of the mix of partners in the consortium and the broad variety of services that these partners need.
>
> Finally, consortia are better equipped to deal with the ongoing costs of financing and supporting a
> telecommunications service. While the ongoing technical support and training costs associated with a
> network might be more than a school can support on its own, distributing these costs among the members
> of a consortium is a proven method of supporting these ongoing costs. (Further Comments 8-2-96 pg.9-10)