US/ND-1: Re: Professional Development
Re: Professional Development
Ronda Hauben (rh120@columbia.edu)
Sat, 31 Aug 1996 07:55:29 -0400 (EDT)
Responding to comments from Steve Kohn (notes.skohn@nynex.com)
>Per the attached comments:
>I think everyone would agree that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will be a
>waste of time and money if teachers do not receive professional development on
>how to use the technology, but more important, how to integrate all the newly
>available resources into the curriculum.
>Having agreed on that, it is then a question of funds - where will the
>additional $$ for professional development come from. As stated elsewhere in
>these discussions, the split of $$ is probably 1/3 for telecommunications (this
>is actually probably high), 1/3 for professional development, and 1/3 for
>content. Some estimates for the telecommunication services covered by US is
Why are funds needed for content? The Internet makes it possible for
people to contribute their own content. Thus what is needed is
access so people can contribute content, not payment for content.
The communications aspects of the Internet are what the FCC is
being charged with making available.
Also, the Freenet or community computer networking prototype
makes training available as part of its structure and at a vrey
low cost as it utilizes volunteers to do so. The money to set
it up and run it is spent on the essentials which are the telephone
lines, some minimal staff to run it, etc.
That's why it seems there is a need to examine how to spread the
actual working prototypes, rather than speculate about providing
all sorts of things that don't yet exist.
>between $20B and $~$47B depending what is included - just for telecommunication
>services. Now double that if you want to include professional development.
>Now develop a surcharge to cover this and you are probably looking at a ~20%
>-25% surcharge on people's phone bills once you include residential universal
>service also - will the FCC support such a tax??
That is why the current Telecommunications Act is a problem, not
a solution to the issue of how to provide universal service
in computer networking - it puts providing cut rates to businesses
and subsidies to corporate entities above providing universal
service.
The debate of who will benefit if there is universal service
to the Internet (meaning residential as well as public sites) hasn't
yet happened. Instead the law assumes that supporting cutbacks in
costs to corporate customers (by supporting supposed competition
which will only benefit big corporate users) is the crucial issue,
and the issue of providing universal service (which will benefit
all) has been narrowed down to providing discounts to schools and
libraries with the residential users getting a surcharge to pay
for these. This isn't a way to provide universal service, but
to take phones away from residential users who can't afford to
subsidize low rates to big corporate users.
And the libraries and schools are being asked to help in this
take away of universal service to residential users.
This isn't a process that the FCC should be involved with either
since it's founding basis has to do with the provision of universal
service.
So it seems there is a need to talk about how to provide for
universal service to all residential users, rather than just
to schools and libraries as part of this online discussion.
Examining how Freenets grow out of university computer facilities
like Cleveland Freenet or work as part of university facilities
and have extended access to the entire community to a basic
Internet minimum (Usenet newsgroups and email and a text based
browser) is something real that can be examined and there can
be real discussion of how to make it available. That is the
kind of discussion that would provide for recommendations and
rules that will provide something real for people, and the cost
is very minimal.
In NYC we have tried to make such access available and hit lots
of roadblocks as doing something like that in a large city
with a large population poses significant problems. That is why
there is a need for government regulations to help.
I just returned from a visit to Amsterdam in Holland. There there
is a national policy to try to support telecommunications.
And in Amsterdam the city council helped to start the DDS -
the digital stadt (i.e. the digital city) to make a minimal
level of free access to newsgroups, email, local discussion
groups, and www available to all for free.
Don't we need to look at situations like this around the world
to see how the U.S. is currently falling farther and farther
behind as it speculates about offering "advanced telecommunications
services" and therefore the minimal access to the Internet
is denied to people in cities like NYC.
>Putting that aside, nothing in the legislation talks about US covering
>professional development.
Don't we have to sort out what is important. I recognize that
certain minimal sectors of the U.S. were asked what they wanted
by Congress when they drafted the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
but they left out the majority of us and therefore to now go
along and only discuss what the telecos asked for is not
going to provide what we who should have been involved in the
process much earlier need and have been fighting for.
>Steve Kohn
>notes.skohn@nynex.com
Ronda
rh120@columbia.edu