- Question #1 seems oversimplified. My response is
"public right" because "equity" implies the same rates - e.g.
a school paying same rates as a commercial site; which is
clearly not the intent of the Act. I'm not all that
comfortable with "public right" however, since it could be
taken as "every member of the public" when I choose to
interpret it as meaning special consideration for certain
public institutions (schools, libraries)
- Add Internet services to the list in 4. above.
By Internet services, I mean Network Operations support
(troubleshooting, config maintenance) -- those services
that an ISP commonly provides. Also included:
DNS and e-mail account services, WWW server services
- As I indicated in a prior message, I believe that we
should narrow the scope of the services to focus on achieving
100% funding of all inter-district telecom costs, rather then a
partial subsidy of all related service
- 1. Purpose of US - a bone thrown to Democrats so that the
Republicans could pass a Telecommunications bill that favors large
corporations, provides a virtually unworkable and unmanageable benefit
for schools and libraries and is paid for by a hidden tax on the middle
class.
2. Educational needs: Depends on whether the benefactor is a school
or library and what type of school or library it is. Also depends on
the success of the school: e.g. the Internet is of zero value for
someone who can't read. Also depends on the curriculum of the school:
e.g. curriculum that requires research than can only be accomplished
via the Internet would certainly have different needs than a school
that requires research that can be accomplished in other ways; simply
teaching someone how to use the Internet doesn't require much band
width nor hardware. Depends on supporting services offered by
community colleges, partnered universities and ISDs: e.g. if an ATM
link offering ITV to/from a community college gives a high school the
option of offering foreign languages they wouldn't otherwise be able to
offer, then I would think my spending priority would be for this
service rather than Internet and other types of telecommunication
services.
3. Range etc. IMHO the whole US concept (reduced telco rates for
schools and libraries) should be scraped. If the Federal Government is
going to provide direct aid to schools and libraries, they should setup
a tax to support the aid and require schools and libraries to apply for
the aid via the grant process. As to the range of services offered:
that would depend on the number of institutions applying, and for what,
and the availability of funds, and the technology of the day , and of
course on the whimsy of the Federal bureaucrats who administer the fund
and the politicians who want to tinker with it.
4. Covered services: see 2 above.
5. Should the Federal Government be funding local schools and
libraries? Probably not. IMHO not all, but nearly all communities
have the resources to adequately support their schools and libraries,
but choose not to. It would require greater local taxes to do so.
When schools and libraries make a good case for additional funding, it
is my experience that local communities often/usually find a way to
support the request. When schools and libraries don't make the case,
they apply for State and Federal grants or start lobying for
legislation that provides what their local communities refuse to
provide.
6. Should the Federal government be expanding the Internet
infrastructure to rural areas and people with low incomes? A better
question might be, should the Federal government circumvent what
thousands of small entrepreneurs are already doing or trying to do?
The unregulated ISP world is a competitive one that allows mom and pop
operations. If you don't like the Internet services you are receiving,
just be patient for awhile; some enterprising entrepreneur will provide
you and the library and the school district with exactly what you need
at a very competitive rate, probably a better rate than any telco will
provide with or without rate subsidies.
- Educational institutions will be left behind if not helped.
Schools located in wealthy areas have the ability to successfully raise
funds so their children will get the best
technology/telecommunications. Then it becomes an equity issue. Schools
such as the ones in Hawthorne are left to constantly look for funds by
writing grants and using the business "hand-me-downs." The
"hand-me-down" equipment seldom can run the newer software. I tried to
use some as a user device for Internet...wrong again... not enough
memory and other things. Our District has a Long Range Technology Plan
and we have met some of the items on the timeline. Just having
computers means up grading the building electricity. Now with Internet
we are looking at more infrastructure work. The knowledge needed to
keep up is unbelievable.
Our District needs help. We are four track year round, multicultural,
multilingual, multiethenic. Some schools have over 70% AFDC, over 50%
Title I, and a District average transiency rate of 10% per month. I
often worry of how these kids will be ready for the work place if we
teach them well but don't train them well.
- Maintain flexibility in defining services. Given the way
technology changes and laws do not, limit the legalese as much as
possible
- Tempting though it is to ask for the moon, I believe we
must be realistic in determining the proper role of the
FCC and the equally important roles of school districts,
libraries, and communities in bringing about equity of
access.
- A good way to get us all involved without the intimidation factor.
The first plunge in, especially for neophytes is a risk.
Good job, you are definitely to be commended
- As a representative of an underfunded rural school district, we
consistantly face not only the bottom line, but a conservative
structure which views change as consistantly negative. Our school
board and much of our administration needs to be led into the 20th
century, let alone the 21st. Universal service in order to be
effectively implemented can not be simply mandated from above. It will
require explanation and guidance for those who have been left behind
- Question #1: The equity of access answer needs some more
detail. Equity of access does not mean the same access.
Different schools will need different access. The T.A.
should provide what schools need
- I did not answer question #1. Equity of access and Public right
to access are difficult to determine. Are we to provide access for
every tom dick and harry along with mary, suzy, and jane. They already
have a right to that access. They have to pay for it just like
everybody else does right now.
- I do not see internal equipment costs as a major burden, but
connection and line costs are. We can not raise our prices
to relect the needed improvement to our telecommunications
capability to service our community in the manner they want.
Right now, we have just three telephone lines servicing our
high school with 45 teachers. It would be prohibitively
expensive to provide them with the telecommunications access
we know that they need right now
- Broad band services should be limited to connectivity. Yes
there are many other issues (training, wiring, hardware, etc)
but these should (must) remain the responsibility of the
local site.
- First, my "votes" do not necessarily reflect the opinions or
positions of my employer. Second, especially related to #4,
a good case can certainly be made for funding staff training,
technical support and other critical functions (and I reserve
the right to be swayed and later change my vote), but it's
important to remember that the overall and all-encompassing
costs of bringing telecommunications technology to schools
and libraries will be shared, at least to one degree or
another. The equation--which fund or source pays for which
services and infrastructure/hardware--is at the heart of
the discussion for much of this seminar. This issue
had to be addressed in Michigan a couple of years ago as
part of an excess earnings case of Ameritech that was
decided by the MI Public Service Commission (my previous
employer). In short, the excess earnings were authorized
for "networking" expenditures such as servers, routers and
related equipment to connect a school district to a
regional network, for example. However, it was not
acceptable for expenditures to be made for classroom
equipment, internal wiring or staff training. The theory
was that other funding sources would have to cover those
costs, including some rebudgeting by the schools themselves,
that without the infrastructure establishing a network to
the district's door there would be little need for staff
training, etc. This approach recognized "the big picture,"
but it realized that a one-time availability of $10.5
million in excess earnings could not begin to meet all
needs related to technology. I believe this national
debate on Universal Service runs somewhat parallel, though
the final outcome and formula for disbursing dollars may
be different
- Educating the teachers and students to use the new technologies
should be first.
- I do not favor either smaller discounts or a larger fund. I favor
a competitive procedure which will use the fund aas a method of
incenting telecommunications providers to use innovation and
efficiencies to reduce their costs. These reductions in costs should
provide large educational discounts over the entire spectrum of
telecommunications services required by the schools.
- The mission of my organization is "To assure Abilene's place on
the Information Superhighway." a broader focus than that of this
Universal Service / Network Democracy Seminar. The larger school
district in my arena "recognizes the need to prepare every student to
meet the technological challenges of the future with confidence and
competence."
I am not yet convinced that the special 'universal service' to schools,
libraries, and medical-hospital services, is properly a part of the
Universal Service to all citizens contemplated by the Telcom Act.
These seem to be unrelated programs. There is still much confusion due
to the way the Legislature assembled the Act; with several
subcommittees, each developing a unique set of sections. There is *not*
a sense of unity of thought and purpose.
Telephony is separate from Video (Cable) and each is separate from
data; wireless services are diverse and totally different, but similar.
Packet service is *not* the same as dial-up; even if packets can be
delivered over dial-up connections.
Almost as an afterthought, the act requires that each *must* treat the
other as if they were treating themselves. "A level playing field" (?)
For elements as compatible as earth, wind, water & fire!??
The existing (prior to the Act) Universal Service fund is aimed at
leveling the cost to the provider for the infrastructure needed to
reach the remote (rural) user of services identical to those offered to
the highly dense population center user.
The school, library support seems more nearly like the measured line
offered to the 'widow without support' type of special rate for
telephony. Not the same breed of cats.
Let us all be particularly alert to the 'technical amendments' that
will be offered by the Congressional leadership in the next session.
These may be passed with little debate or discussion.
The question was asked earlier in the seminar; "What is the source of
these funds?" I seem to have missed the answer(s)
- Q1: Equity seems to me to be more of an issue for schools.
Q1: Public Right is more of an issue for libraries.
Q2: Eventually all of these services will be on internet.
(local voice may be an exception)
Q4: Why should a telco pay for a LAN?
(its not even their technology!
- I have a difficult time selecting between "equity" and "public
right" in question 1. I feel it is a combination of the two so I would
like to get a better definition of "public right" I could not find a
reference in the discussion so far. I would want to make sure that
connectivity to the site is open to a multitude of options, not just
low-end services. Schools should be able to choose what works best
based on the assessment of need and communication requirements
- I am afraid that because of hurricane Fran, I have not been
able to keep up with the conversations of the seminar. I do
think that it is important for the those receiving universal
access to buy into the plan. Therefore they should be will
to provide the technical support, internal wiring, and staff
development. They must realize that this is a new method of
delivery of information and be willing to shift the dollars to
make it conceivable. Some school districts have already bitten
the bullet on this and should be commended.
- If telecommunications technology is to have a true impact
on the instructional program, teacher training, access to
equipment and technological support must be present. This provide
an authentic opportunity for teachers to integrate technology
into the curriculum. Students and teachers without this opportunity
ortunity will begin to view their schools as second class institutions.
- Consider some kind of requirement on the local level to match
Universal service - something like a "maintenance of effort"
clause
- These questions talk to the issue of bona fide requests for whom
and judged by whom and how are they funded. I strongly urge ANY
request by a school district or eligible public agency to automatically
be considered a bona fide request. This means the services should be
broad in nature and the Universal Fund must be appropriately funded. In
my opinion any other approach will have little impact on the apparant
goals of the program.
- The services listed under item 4 all are important
components of achieving access and effective utilization
of telecommunications, however, it must be understood that
only certain components can be expected to be funded through
the Telecommunications Act. Individual schools and communities
must assume responsibility for supporting training,
computers and evaluation. Perhaps this forum will allow for
a group discussion of how schools and communities can
allocate resources for these expenses.
Thanks for including evaluation in the discussion. We can
learn a great deal from experiences of those further down
the path
- The new technologies are replacing the traditional methods
of information access. The government depository program,
government printing program, health information, consumer
information--all are moving toward electronic distribution.
For the sake of our democracy, we need to make sure information
is available to all. The Universal Service provision
can ensure that all our people have access, regardless of
race, creed, level of income, etc. Thank you for listening!
- Cost continues to be a barrier to access. Large access cost
discrepencies exist between rural and urban. There needs to be a model
to equalize access and make sustainable.
- I found myself answering "both" or "all of the above" to many of
these questions. I think "Universal Acess" means exactly what it says;
it's not a matter of equity it's a matter of rights. Just like
education and libraries-as citizens we have the right to education and
to information
- Among other considerations business
should recognize that its future involves
graduating much more sophisticated
and knowledgeable students from our
schools.
It is in the best interest of business
to help insure such a graduate by
providing more than window dressing
--sound byte programs that make the
6:00 News or the morning paper-- as
ongoing investment in the future of
American education.
In sum, a working Universal Service
Fund should not be looked on as a
penalty for the gifts businesses have
received under the 1996 Act. It should
be looked upon as a way to improve
the public need to know using the
very best methods modern technology
has to offer.
- The Maine PUC, through a rate case decision, is requiring
NYNEX to fund a School and Library network in Maine (approx
1100 sites). While the fund provides some money for computers
(rural sites with NO computer) and training, the bulk of the
fund ($20million over 5 years) is being spent for connectivity.
The sites that will gain the most from this network are those
without the means to do so on their own. Any "universal service"
funding mechanism should be targeted, using some sort of means
test. The Universal Service fund now supports the phone service
for anybody in an area of "high cost" to include someone on
food stamps to Bill Gates. Hardly an efficient or equitable
system. The cost-causers should pay and those who can't to
receive some sort of support
- I feel that we should not expect too much from universal service,
for much of what is required to effectively use technology should
remain the responsibility of the local entity. Where universal service
kicks in is in making access to information affordable for all citizens
and institutions serving them. In other words the costs of hooking up
an institution to telecommunications and the provision of the line
through which information flows should be discounted to the point that
it is within the reach of every school and library. Other costs such as
for routers, personal computers, staff training and the like should be
separate from universal service
- Educational networking is in such an embryonic stage that far
too few educators, administrators and decisionmakers have
an adequate basis to make informed choices relative to the
potential values and required accomodations the introduction
of new communications services will represent for schools and
libraries. We have to show the "why" before the "how" will
make sense.
- Re: Broad vs. Narrow.
Support should cover broad range of services so that schools and
libraries have flexibility choosing the services that they need most.
- Unfortunately, the either/or options of this survey preclude the
kind of flexibility which will be necessary when the states
begin to implement the broad concepts which the FCC will
establish in its rulemaking process. It may be better to have
broad categories and definitions which are adaptable to state
and local situations and needs for all of the potentials participant
and beneficiaries of the Universal Service funding mechanisms.
- The public right of access to modern technologies is important.
We also should consider the operating hours of schools, libraries and
other public access points. Unfortunately, with the exception of Post
Office lobbies and hospital emergency rooms, few public buildings are
accessible weekends or during hours other than the typical 10 a.m. to 5
p.m. workday. The AARP and Consumers Union arguments for broad
service, affordable service, and unmetered service to users' homes have
much to recommend them. In reality, the Universal Service fund will be
an investment in future returns for all the technologies which
contribute to the fund. Each new user becomes part of the customer
base, whether it is a school, a library, or a private home, which will
continue to use and need further services far into the future.
- I want to be sure that advanced applications are covered in the
universal service fund versus the standard phone service.
Secondly, I would like to see all barriers for telecommunications
service across regions eliminated. Let the competitive market drive
discounts for schools rather than have the providers and PUC's set
discount rates which may become inflexible and will maintain the
current infrastructure.
- Re: equity vs. public right
It seems to me that "equity" has the potential of putting a cap on
access while "public right" seems to imply a basic level of access
without upper limits
- The survey seems tilted to one point of view -- guaranteeing
responses by pointed wording of questions or limiting response
choices. For example: Question #1 - Are these the only options?
and, What really is the difference between the two? Question #3 -
Where is the clarification question for those who respond
"Narrow"
Just some thoughts - am enjoying the discussion.
- My that was painless
- Public right access is fine if you go beyond "rights" to service.
Too often the government agrees to an idea as essential and legislates
it---------without any financial means to accomplish the idea. Nice
ideas don't educate and neither do just having the "rights" issued
- Should the range of services covered by
the Universal Service Fund be narrow, so that the magnitude
of available discounts can be large,
or should the range of services be broad,
which would result either in smaller discounts
or a larger Fund?
I am not sure I am understanding this question completely.
We must choose what the Universal Fund will cover...Broad
range of services, which allows for smaller discounts to
public entities? Or a more narrow range of services to offer
larger discounts? If this is correct, I do not think limitations
should be part of the arrangement! Technology is changing too
quickly and if we limit our discount to services, we might well
be limiting our capabilities for integration.
Second point:
How should we view the purpose of the Universal
Service Fund for schools and libraries? Is it to provide equity of
access to telecommunications services, or is it to establish a public
right of access to such services?
If we are JUST focusing on schools and libraries...the purpose of
the Universal Fund is both equity of access because of the
equity of information for educational purposes and thus the right
of every student, teacher, administrator, and parent to have
these services. There is a point I am not understanding here.
Why is this being viewed as either equity or right? In my
eyes equality of education is a right just as it is the right
to have the opportunity of education according to the US
Constitution
- For schools that have taken the initiative to provide access
to the Internet for all students K-12 by finding ways to fund
a 2.5 to 1 ratio of students to computers, by becoming a Website
provider for the community, by providing a topography with a backbone
of fiber (not only locally, but for satellite schools WAN), and by
hiring a staff for teacher and equipment support---finding new funding
is very difficult.
It seems the attitude of most funding organizations is (for these
schools) there are more needy schools and since you have access
you have no further need. We have access and advanced technology services
BECAUSE we were aggressive in seeking outside grant funding and
local funding. We organized our technology committees years ago and
followed the strategic plan that was adopted. We successfully ran
public relation campaigns focusing on the future for our children
and how technology is going to play a critical part.
My frustration now is this:
1. The Wayne Community Schools has 340
networked computers offering 940 students
email services, homework assignements
at home, curriculum information for
for parents, scheduling and grading
services for all teachers and administrators,
internet access for ALL students while
at school or at home (free), 40 laptops
to take home overnight and over the weekends,
CUceeme activities, community access to
internet, multimedia services via the
network, video animation training in the
television studio, industrial technology
mods---etc.
BUT
To maintain this system requires a small
school to invest about $110,000 a year--
that is not dollars toward BUILDING the
network services---only for MAINTENANCE of
what we have.
Are there no dollars available for schools that have been
aggressive and do provide the cutting edge? If these schools
are not allowed to pursue their technology goals, won't they to
end up in the same mediocrity of technolical services that the
average schools offer to their students? Then, what have we gained?
- Some aspects of the connectivity should be local responsibility
Updating workstations, ongoing training, software etc. are
the responsibility of the organization providing services. The
real monitary problems seem to be in starting up a new service
and purchasing core equipment. The service costs for a school
or a library should be discounted and lower than a commercial
business that will probably make a profit for the use.
- I serve as a technology coordinator for a county with several
small rural school districts. Their primary concern is access
to digital data comm, i.e., frame relay, and the cost of that
service at an acceptable bandwidth. Most of these districts
already have the computers, and could probably afford routers.
They either can not get frame relay, or it they can, they can not
justify the cost of a frame relay connection at a band width that
gives acceptable performance.
- Is there a recognized governing office that can certify an
"Internet Education" teacher? I feel that I am qualified, but
if someone questions my qualifications, I want to be able to prove
myself.
I would appreciate a reply.