Comments on Survey:
Conclusion of the On-line Seminar

Comments and Suggestions on the Seminar Topics

• Although the topics are all important, I appreciated the moderator bringing focus to the discussion in the last few weeks. It was pretty much all over the map at first with a seeming desire to have the FCC solve ALL our problems.
• The on line conference worked just as our last two years have worked
  we mixed philosophy, put our fires, mixed curriculum and technology,
  law and needs. Some of us were knowledgable about bits and pieces
  but no one could handle the deversity and enormity of the project.
  Thanks to Bob and your crew, I hope you don't think it a cop out to
  check "all of the above".
• Some of the technical details involving connectivity are beyond the grasp of some participants and hence make intelligent commenting difficult.
• In a future seminar, I would have more time to study the
  complex technologies and funding issues if there were less
  postings to the list by certain verbose participants. Then,
  _I'd_ contribute comments more regularly to the list.
  
  Please enforce a one posting per week per participant rule.
  
• The seminar began too late in the FCC proceedings to be credible as an influence on the considerations. The late start also made it virtually impossible for newcomers to catch up with and understand the volume of material, the issues and the tactics of the advocates.
• Checking all four options may make it sound like I'm
  critical of the seminar. Not true. I just think that to
  reach consensus, come up with solutions (or good ideas that
  may lead to solutions), etc., it would be difficult to
  accomplish in an electronic forum, especially with a topic
  as broad and complicated as Universal Service.
• I learned a lot, but I was overwhelmed.
• It appeared to me that seminar participants got "bogged down"
  in the paradigm of a "listserv" discussion rather than in
  a true seminar format. It was difficult for members to keep
  focused and on task.
• Overall this was a great effort. I feel many key points regarding
  key issues were assumed and/or generalized. I recommend a tighter focus.
  For instance; if flat rate internet is broadly available
  for $20/month in most communities, and if Eugene, OR is
  able to bring this access cost down to a sustainable $5/month
  for unlimited access...what's the brouha about universal
  service? Is this a bandwidth question? Again: Focused issues
  make better sense.
• My orientation is engineering. The Seminar is policy/sociology/philosophy oriented.
  I prefer questions that are answered more unequivocally. These all have a "yes, but" or
  "only if" connected to the answer.
  The source material that I read included comments from providers that were still in
  a mind-set of telephony, or TV Cable, or wireless, instead of telecommunications.
  The Act seems to have been written in such a way as to encourage that kind of confusion.
  The stakeholders (legacy providers) are obliged to try to maintain as much of the
  status quo as they can to help amortize the 'stranded investments' and reassure their
  stockholders. Yet they must face competition without the burden of that once prudent
  investment. I particularly noticed that the Universal Access fund borrows from Peter
  to pay Paul. TANSTAAFL! (Which betrays my age.) English needs another synonym for
  Universal, besides Ubiquitous since these are embroiled in legaleze. I believe Information
  Superhighway access must be equally available to (potential) users, regardless of race,
  creed, age, education, gender, or economic status. Yet it cannot be free, for only the
  worthless has no price, no cost. The 'Universal Service' discussed in this seminar is
  actually service to a limited segment of the population, related to users in K-12 only.
• The issues are complex and the seminar helped to sort through the issues assisting in a clearer perspective and direction.
• Topics certainly covered many of the important issues although some of the discussions re: need for professional development registered participant frustrations, but weren't necessarily relevant to the questions posed by the F.C.C.
• Excellent approach to broad based input from
  a large body of constituents.
• It was a great experience to be part of this kind of
  conference and to learn more about computers in
  Education today.
• They seem to be in consensus with other groups doing similar
  discussions be they online, at conferences, or in local
  districts.
• I was out of my depth for major portions of the discussion.
• As we are a very small facility, and just beginning to build a
  network, the comments by most of the contributors were
  beyond us, however some of the philosophy and basic community building
  examples were valuable.
• I had a significant job change during this project and was unable to participate.
• would have been nice if we'd had more time to explore the issues in depth. also, it would have been nice had the FCC taken a more active role in seeking input from the people on the discussion list.
• Ya'll got too technical for me.
• The variety of opinions and scenarios opened my eyes to the problems and pitfalls of universal-service.
• Some of the discussions included technical information that I did not understand. However, that is *exactly* why universal service access is important. We who have not had the opportunity to know about some kinds of technology need exposure to possibilities in order to make wise choices.
• only real problem I see is, information is overwhelming, too much information coming at once. From the ideal of "Free net" I have begun conversation with a local provider to start a Free net for our community organization's outreach people
• The irony is that the materail was both too broad and too
  narrow. Access, discussed freeform, is exceptionally
  broad, but we never really dealt very usefully with what
  motivates folks to be present on the net -- i.e., content.
  
  How it comes to be
  How it is made usable
  How it is made useful
  
  We seem content with a model that develops most of its
  content for commercial purposes, even if that purpose
  is advertising. This is not necessarily bad but it is
  out of balance, and it has major implication for access.
  
  Access to what ... never got much of a look, even as a
  theoretical discussion.
• While the topics were relevant, many of the comments were not and were not productive to the discussion.
  I found myself only skimming them because they were not useful.
• None of the above. I found the level of discourse shallow.
• Perhaps their could be a different organization of discussion
  groups, such that people of "similar" background could delve
  into conversations that uncover new understandings, and "cross"
  discipline discussions where those unfamiliar with the issues
  and practices of particular communities could be introduced to
  the operant habits of mind in these new areas. This would require
  having people serve as two distinct types of correspondant/
  facilitator for each group.
• There may be too many issues to deal with to permit
  advance planning. Universal access may require faith
  on the part of the government that schools will use
  allotted monies to the district's best needs.
• The moderator's comments and directing suggestions were especially useful in focusing topic discussion.
• I thought that the moderator, did a great job in steering the discussion the way it needed to be going.
  
• All topics were informative; I got frustrated when people repeated the same information. They were better than me as I never even found time to even repeat somethings.
  
• Issues not too complex, but complexity is involved
  when there are so many resources,
  most of which are industry self-serving ones.
• The topics were timely and relevant. I had to drop the seminar.
  The depth of the topics were beyond my expertise, though I feel that
  I gained a greater understanding of the isssues by being able to
  evesdrop on the conversation.
• My lack of technical knowledge re bandwidths etc. often left me feeling overwhelmed. I did, however, learn quite a bit.
• The seminar provided a lot of good dialogue but never got focused enough to enable a clear mutual vision to be established among participants.
• The dialogue was exceptionally focused and rich.
• Everyone is so eager to post their opinions and ideas that the discussions often rambled or became repetitive. There should be a period for brainstorming, but that must be followed by analysis and some conclusion (whether the final answer or not.) I'm afraid I did not make it through much of the material of the last few weeks.
• Got very specific. I wish there could have been more time spent on borader theories.
• I'm not sure I really mean "too broad to cover" but it was an extraordinary amount of information to assimilate. However, having this available online is a great help. The Technology Board I serve on for Brownwood includes representatives from the community and public schools, and the subcommittee I have on Public Access will find the online information useful over and over. Whether they could understand it all in five weeks is doubtful, but having the information to refer to is invaluable. The topics covered are exactly the ones we were charged to cover as well.
• The original advertisement of this on-line seminar was
  not as clearly stated as it could have been. I expected to
  find much more relevant material about curriculum and teaching
  practices.
• I would like to see discussion held with only classroom
  teachers involved. Where the rubber meets the road sort
  of discussion. I saw some issues where educators need to
  provide input. Universal access is moot if electricity is
  the wiring needed in the classroom! don't dismiss this as
  a joke! I do my telecommunications from home and use my
  classroom a little but I have to run wire all over to get
  things to work.
  
• Hard to keep up with all the information that was coming in.
• All the information was a little overwhelming at first but I
  believe it's all important
• Considering the voices of prospective users was forward thinking.
• THE SEMINAR WAS VERY INFORMATIVE TO ME AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR. SOME OF THE INFORMATION COVERED
  REALLY BROAD IN NATURE. THE VOLUME OF THE REPONSES WAS GREAT, BUT SOMETIMES OVERWHELMING.
• Shortly after I signed up for this seminar, I began receiving
  a flood of messages on the topic and simultaneously became
  heavily involved in a series of work-related tasks. As a result
  I spent very little time with these messages. My impression
  is that the issues are more complex than I am willing to
  deal with at this time.
• I was interested in the topic, but didn't really have time to
  participate and was gone several weeks. I liked the surveys
  because they were brief and I could at least respond with them
  (even tho I missed one of them). I liked the quick way one
  could respond with the survey.
• The commitment to read the weekly background materials exceeded my available time.
• I mostly learned that I do not know enough about the technical aspects and implications of this issue.
  I think that is because I have focused on knowing how to teach this use to teachers and students and dealt
  with the technical aspects as little as possible. My knowledge is in the area of instructional technology and the use of
  information access skills. The seminar topics took on an immediate discussion of ways to provide access and I feel that I
  have limited knowledge in those areas.
• After the first week when our school began, I found it all overwhelming. I didn't have the time I needed to devote and digest the material. Thanks for the opportunity to participate, but the start of school was too busy in itself to devote the time needed. Thanks.
• Personally I found many comments to be outside my frame of knowledge, which made it
  cumbersome. That's my fault, of course, since I, unlike the many teachers, principals, and librarians participating in the course,
  do not work in the field of education. Many topics discussed seemed to delve deep into educational details. That's very interesting per se,
  I'm sure, but I wonder how much of a purpose it serves here. OK, it's good just for the sake of discussion and learning. But for the sake of
  lobbying the joint board/FCC on this? I have a hard time picturing the joint board members reading, understanding and taking pointers from
  some of the comments in the discussion. Maybe the topics should have been more focused on the answers the FCC is seeking in its NPRM in Docket 96-45.
  It's my guess that could be more effective, as far as "lobbying" efforts go. Having said that, I think it was a great seminar!
• It might be helpful to segment the discussions into subsections.
  Once specific topics are identified, it would be nice to have
  discussion groups that target in on specific topics. This would
  help narrow discussions and keep individual discussions on topics
  that are related to each other.
• Although the issues are very complex, we educators must address them!!
  
• More context provided with the questions would have been helpful. e.g., definition of terms and issues.
• The topics were relevant; however, at times I wondered if
  I were in over my head.
  
• I got annoyed, just like I do on listserv's, at some
  participants lack of focus. The topics were okay as long as
  everyone focused on them.
• I did not give it the time it needed and that you warned would be necessary.
• Unfortunately, I became busy and was unable to participate actively most of the time. This comment applies to the following questions as well
• A topic such as this with so many facets and with so many with differing viewpoints commenting made it a very difficult topic.
  
  I applaud your efforts to allow for such a divergent dialogue.
• I think the seminar was valuable but it was very broad.
• My background for some topics was not broad enough for me to be able to contribute in a meaningful way. I needed more time to research the questions posed before the week ended and new questions suraced.
• A new seminar to introduce grassroots groups to Snowe-Rockefeller (E-Rate) and what it means for them and their communities. Good way to start getting the word out, so that can benefit.
• All the topics were valuable and interesting, but often seemed to lean towards technical telecom operations and regulation issues which may or may not affect schools and libraries; similarly, the discussion seemed to get sidetracked onto computer hardware issues which ultimately have to be resolved by the individual school or library -- ie. more budget driven than policy driven -- comments by school MIS people were the most interesting and helpful, in terms of models for other schools;
• Sometimes the number of issues being discussed at one time
  was difficult to handle, but this was probably due to people
  joining the group at differnt times and trying to catch up.

Comments and Suggestions on the On-line Materials

• It would be nice if they continued to be available for some time after the seminar.
• I didn't use the archive because everything was coming in email evry day -- if I'd known how to turn that off and just use the archive, I would have. Should have asked you!
• We, including me, became redundant in our own fields of expertise.
  The diversity of individuals helped, but there is a more diverse field
  of people that were not on line. Who has the time to read all that
  information! Perhaps you could ask each of us, now to summarize a part
  of the documents, on line discussion, etc. to finalize this
  useful, yet open ended discussion.
• As with any seminar a few individuals were the major contributors to discussion. You might have gotton more individuals to participate if general discussion was limited and more questionnaires developed for seminar input. I am not a telecommunications expert nor one who lives and breathes telecommunications, so will tend to be a listener rather than a contributor. However, I do have opinions and through the questionnaire process they could have been better drawn out.
• All the on-line materials served a function
• All good and well arranged.
• Had I enjoyed the facilities and training to use the Threaded presentations, I believe I would have learned more quickly.
• There was such a wealth of information. They were all valuable although, there was never enough time to read it or keep-up.
• At times unable to download all of text, suggest that the email
  be attached as an enclosure. We solved the problem by copying
  the file as text and loading into word document
• I found the participant's contributions to be at considerable
  variance to what I thought the law was saying.
  Consequently, a high noise level (not unusual in
  newsgroups, of course).
• The digest format was the best for me since
  I could only access once or twice a day.
• the repository is esp. helpful, though it would be more so if it were kept up to date.
• I only used e-mail.
• Very valuable. At times, it seemed some participants were dominating the contributions. Some, like me, were too busy to jump in, but throughly enjoyed the discussions and rebuttals.
• I did not check the above question due again to the overwhelming amount of info. The weekly summaries were what I used to keep up, but with time limitations it was very difficult to read all of the items, let alone answer any of them
• This may be my fault. A problem with online teaching
  is that it does not carve out a satisfactory niche in
  students' daily lives, and it lives in the untidy corners
  of our day-to-day activities. I simply didn't have the
  time needed.
• None of the above
• Had this seminar happened before the start of the school year,
  I would have had the time to devote to reviewing the comprehensive
  set of materials you provided. Unfortunately, this was not
  even a remote possibility.
• I didn't use any supporting documents.
• The libraries and archives were exteremly complete and provided valuable background information before the discussion, and useful updates while the discussion was going on.
• I tried to follow the Conference with print-outs of the
  materials send to my e-mail, but many were so big it got to
  a point my quota was exceded, having troubles even to read
  my other e-mail. Next time I will use the www page instead
  of my e-mail address.
• In future similar resources should
  be made available, as I am sure they
  would be.
  
  Now that the FCC has a search engine
  it will be easier to find things there as well.
• I was unaware of the weekly summaries and the archive. Not sure how I missed it. Perhaps got too caught up in the other two.
• On-line dialogues should have been filtered more. Responses should have more often had the original message separated from them.
• Thank you to the people that took time to prepare the weekly summaries.
  
• I did not have occasion once during the five weeks to wish something else was online. You did an outstanding job of letting us keep up with everything, and having the actual e-mail available to review was extraordinarily helpful.
• Since I was a non-participant, I don't have a basis for
  responding to this question.
• Don't know, I was a dropout.
• Get the immediate posting instead of Digest.
• On target. Brought up aspects of the topic that helped to move my
  thinking forward.
• Very lengthy
• The flood of responses in the beginning made it difficult to keep up with individual participant contributions, so I found myself frustrated with wanting to read every word and not having time. Some weeks I was travelling extensively and could not access the information on a daily basis. This contributed to the back log of info.

Comments and Suggestions on the Surveys

• Not of GREAT value but useful. At least by answering the surveys I felt that I was participating a LITTLE. It mitigated guilt.
• none
• Could have been developed in more detail. Information generated from the surveys was of a general nature and in the long run not too helpful to the decision making process.
• It made me aware of the needs of others. Focus in on own problems sometimes and forget that others face other types of problems which also need to be looked at. However, from this seminar I wonder if all the problems can be solved to the satisfaction of all.
• Not so much "shallow" as the issues just being too complex
  to state a specific opinion without having more detail on
  or a better understanding of the context.
  
• I felt I was not well enough informed to be able to vote intelligently.
• I think the surveys were one of the best means of helping
  to keep focus and report back results from all participants.
• I didn't use the surveys.
• While it is a good way to assess the group, the audience may not be the right audience.
• I saw such diversity in background, experience and agendas
  among the participants that the act of completing the survey
  often left me feeling that my answers were forced into categories
  I'd not have otherwise chosen.
• Need to have an investigation on what services/tools are available.
  This should be totally independent of personal bias. The
  community needs a resource for use when/if they implement
  any site/resource in the future. This can include past
  experiences with said items, so individuals can have a 1 to 1
  give and take on controversial ideas.
• They were useful, it was myself and bad timing as far as scheduling goes that I did not take advantage of it.
• Good way to summarize trend of participants.
• Surveys are useful only if everyone responds. You did an excellent job of following up, and it appears that you got a fairly good response. Survey questions with their answers may be a useful tool for the next round of discussions.
• I never got a survey ? Maybe I missed it but the e-mail
  was all I got and never saw a survey/
• The surveys were useful gain an idea of how others were thinking.
  Such surveys and online conversations will be important to districts and institutions implementing innovation technology grants in the future.Nex
• I thought it was interesting seeing others views and how
  others thought about the world around us.
  
• See previous comment.
• Unfortunately, I did not see the surveys.
• Did not participate except in this one.
• Did not participate.
• Did not participate.
• Good review and timesaving device.

Observations on the Mechanics of the Seminar

• Although I had some access to the Web, I mostly relied on email and that
  didn't seem sufficient to keep up with the discussion.
• The materials, assignments, and surveys were very useful. One more week might have been helpful; but the short time has its own advantages in terms of focussing on making progress through the materials.
• You warned us about the time but it still turned out to be more than I could do and I felt bad about not participating in the discussion. It was all I could do to keep it read. I did appreciate when you started asking focussed questions so people's repsonses got more focussed.
• I have kept all the e-mail and sorted by responder, topic, date
  agenda (occupation). In my third life-time I may be able to
  pick out trends, and get a handle on this thing.
• At first, I felt rather blown away by the depth of some participants'experiences and the topics under discussion. As the seminar moved along, I became more comfortable. While it was time-comsuming, I learned a great deal and I am sorry to see it end.
• The beginning of the school year was a busy time for me.
• An overload on the e-mail system, especially useful for relevant comments; esp. annoying for those who only griped or "soapboxed" their opinions.
• I found the mechanics great!
  Problem was finding the time to do it all.
  
• I've noted a flurry of activity in the beginning and very little
  activity at the end (unless I've missed something.)
  
  Too many subliminal issues undermine participants attempt to
  condense out exactly what the key questions are, as I noted in my
  above comment.
  
  "Access" isn't black and white as an issue. Email access only gives
  greatest access per unit cost, but without good people to
  contact and collaborate with, its meaningless.
  
  Bandwidth seems to be the hidden issue as opposed to
  dialup 28.8 local access which is already here in most
  communities, even communities of 500 here in Montana, (Wisdom)
  Heck, 3 providers in Dillon MT, pop. 4000.
  
  Cut to the chase.
• See my comments above about threads. Unforunate occurances kept me from making best use of the Web organized materials.
  
• Regarding 2.d. I had two classes winding up, at the end of
  September -- with three projects in one and two in the
  other. Additionally, eight thesis students graduating
  at the same time. This participation consequently fell
  off the bottom of the priority list. The fact that the
  signal/noise ratio was pretty bad made that decision a lot
  easier.
• I wonder if it would be possible to have more than one level
  of discussion, or several topics being discussed, and have the
  reviews present a overview of all.
• It seemed to me that the content was the same week after week.... I don't understand the techy side. Ya'll seemed to want to discuss techy issues A LOT. I'm a happy user. I was lost in most of your conversations. I just want to have access - how ya'll do that is beyond me. I want the children to have acess. i want the parents to have access. JUST DO IT. Since we have phones and cable wired to each house, it seems reasonable to expect access to the Web, too - BUT we need tech support and lots of it. Which I said once and felt like it wasn't heard.....
• Preferred method was email, but I consulted the archived ddiscussions frequently.
• Actually, I thought it was conducted appropriately and thoroughly. The problem in my case was lack of time. That was NOT the fault of the seminar; it was that I have overextended myself and did not prepare adequately.
• To cover material like this, I would suggest material in
  week-long blocks, with intervals between for catch-up.
  
  Once I fell behind and my reading backed up, it was hard
  to motivate the catch-up. This is a problem that still
  needs more attention in online teaching -- the role of the
  teacher as a motivator, cajoler, perhaps even as inspirational
  leader. When we think back on previous learning oppor-
  tunities, I thin most of us can distinguish between those
  "classes" that simply accessed a body of information and
  those that changed us, motivated us, inspired us.
  
  I don't mean this as a major criticism of this seminar. It
  is a recurrent problem with online teaching. I think we
  need to study what makes a "good" online learning experience,
  though. More attention to the good models. I particularly
  like what _________ did with ROADMAP (internet course that
  originated at the University of Alabama). He broke it up
  into units that rarely took more than 15 minutes to complete,
  provided one unit a day, made most of the units focus on a
  specific task to be accomplished, and kept the tone light
  (sometimes even silly).
  
  This seminar was a good experience, but as I tried to balance
  the seminar and insert it into my daily routine, I found I
  became more and more passive as the weeks went on, until I
  eventually "dropped out." This wasn't your fault, more
  mine than yours, but I dropped out nonetheless.
  
  I have all my downloads in a folder. I fully intend to return
  to them. But you and I both know that I won't.
• I did not participate as much as others, but rather watched and tried to learn from the conversation. This allowed my time commitment to be lower than others. I felt some of the discussion was instructive and MUCH of it not. I am not sure how that gets better, or even if is should get better. Just a comment:-)
• Like a number of listserves in existence, the level of discourse was disappointing. I removed myself fromt he list in the second week.
• Remember CoSN/FARnet? Having participants divide into groups
  based upon interest/expertise, having them craft materials which
  explain the issues and make recommendations, *then* having
  all participants gather to examine these, reflect upon them,
  and finally (unlike CoSN/FARnet) doing follow up activity to
  pull things together might make for a more powerful experience,
  and provide the FCC with more focused data.
• A very good job, I stop receiving mail though about two weeks ago
  and thought I had been taken off list. If, I was amidst in
  comment or participation (which I was not), it would have
  been nice to have some message accordingly. Otherwise, I
  enjoyed the discussion, and thought it provided a much needed
  forum. This needs to continue, people need to take this 1st
  step and follow up with future ones. Rome was not built in
  a day, and any good solution takes iterative revisiting on
  possible a yearly basis.
  
  As we develop software, we use just such a timeframe for a
  life-cycle. Thanks, for your consideration, and feel free
  to call on me for any future needs,
  
  thankfully yours,
  
  Bob Terry
  
• Again, I feel that the seminar was a great service to those that participated. It was organized and professionally done. It was my scheduling conflict and not having connection to the internet while I was traveling, so I would get back to the office and read the e-mails once a week. I felt it was myself that let the seminar down by not participating fully in the discussion.
• As I pointed out before, next time I'll try "Web only."
• The experience of this seminar
  will prove to be most helpful in
  organizing future seminars.
  
  Certainly the networking possibilities
  were of a beneficial nature and this
  can't be discounted when assessing
  the overall success of the project.
• I lurked throughout the seminar, partly because of my lack of technical knowledge and partly because of a lack of time. Some weeks I read quite a bit. Others not. My main concern was for equity, especially for inner city, minority students and adult learners. I did not see a lot of discussion around this issue. I wish I had taken the time to make at least one statement about it.
• I would have participated more if I had used the email delivery as well.
  My preference would have been to just get the weekly summaries, or even a daily summary via email as a reminder to check the Web for content.
  
• I'm sorry but without an email to remind me of the seminar
  I simply forgot about it.
• I indicated that it was not long enough, however, I would have found it difficult to participate longer. Perhaps breaks between assignments would work? There was so very much material, and so little time!
• I feel bad in that I did not participate at the
  level I had wanted. Mostly this was because I was promoted
  to a new job and I didn't have the time. I wish there
  had been more surveys (similar to this one) that would
  have allowed me to check various pieces of information
  which could have been tabulated.
• I liked this set up. I would be willing to participate in
  another online seminar set up this way.
• Next time maybe try some CU-SeeMe meetings.
• THE USE OF BOTH E-MAIL AND THE WEB WAS A GREAT WAY TO REACH A BROADER
  AUDIENCE. EXCELLENT USE OF RESOURCES!!
• The approach taken to this seminar was interesting, and I hope
  it will be used on future occasions. However, I found it to be
  overwhelming, at least at this particular time. The sheer
  volume of information in the e-mailings alone, plus the complexity
  of the subject, and the extensive collection of background
  materials, required a good more time and concentration
  than I was able to give. It is quite possible that the topic
  is too specialized for me, and that I could have participated
  better if the information had been summarized and digested
  more.
• I caught up with you late in the game. Had I had more time, I would
  have utilized WEB access also. Commenting on an earlier item, 5 weeks
  is about the right length of time if enough forethought and planning
  is in place to prepare for the participation. Again, my problem for
  being late in joining.
• I found myself unable to participate fully for two reasons: much of what was discussed was beyond my level of understanding and, because of the time constraints of my job, I could not give enough time to the seminar to gain a better understanding by reading more of the materials.
• More susinct summaries would have been nice. I had a difficult time following some threads and was confused about others. In fact, perhaps a moderated discussion by a small number of knowledgable participants with questions submitted by the public to the moderator would have covered more ground -- especially if each question/comment was focused well.
• My time is too tight to work along with the group in a
  constructive,partricipatory manner. It was too fast and
  intense for someone like me who is adding the seminar to an
  already too full calendar.
  
• Perhaps more useful would have been specific questions posed to me.
• Nest year I could probably do it all on the Web

Comments on the Value of the Seminar; How You Intend to Use the Information Here; and Whether There Should be Similar Activities in the Future

• I have been sharing information about the seminar w/my school district's technology consultant, our county library, a freenet, and the local high school district. I believe that this legislation has the potential to change education for the better, and possibly to further many social and economic goals of our nation. I plan to learn more about how networks are formed and hope to be part of one for my school district or local community.
• I think it was very valuable. I learned a lot. It was indeed the best moderated discussion I've tried. Getting the focussed questions out sooner in the discussion would be my only suggestion and corral some people (few) whoe really got off topic.
• I am the liason between our conference and our local SpiritNet
  Board. I am to report to them concerning the same information
  you are asking here, in greater detail. That is why I am looking
  through your web site and the e-mail. Please keep the data handy
  through this year (1996) if possible. Thank you for allowing
  me to participate. Jan
• In response to 3d. I possibly might recommend such a seminar to individuals in the future. My recommendation would be based on content, how it is moderated and what its end goals are.
• Thanks, Bob and Laurie, for the opportunity to participate.
• I'm involved in community access video in a town library
  setting. Few participants from from the PEG access TV
  or library communities spoke up on the mailing list. I wish
  more had. I found the heavy e-mail traffic by public school
  computing professionals and by communication technology
  consultants a bit intimidating. However, their comments were
  most appropriate .. just excessively frequent by certain
  individuals! Wally Stuart
• Trailing along behind government's efforts to control of an activity is difficult. The seminars might be better directed at smaller substantive issues where private sector performance can be developed/enhanced before the need for government dominance.
• Once you've pulled together such a collection of interested
  (and knowledgeable) people, it's a shame to end the seminar,
  especially since the Universal Service proceeding is still
  active. Providing some forum for continuing discussion,
  sharing information, etc. would be nice.
• Thanks, Laurie, for your contact.
• Aside from being able to put my two cents in every once in a while
  I learned a lot regarding the depth and breadth of the issues.
  This is important not only for "citizen" understanding but also
  for remaining an "informed educator".
  
• Overall this was a profoundly outstanding demonstration of
  how to conduct public input. The info-ren folks did an outstanding
  job!!! The FCC need to not muddle issues by inadvertantly
  mixing apples and oranges. The FCC should do its own homework
  before engaging citizens; i.e. simplify the REAL questions to
  be asked of citizens, otherwise the FCC risks looking as though
  its input efforts are less than sincere.
  
  I'm available for further input at any time. I would not have
  participated to the extent I have without this info-ren
  initative. See you next go'round!
  
  Frank Odasz
  Big Sky Telegraph
• I have condensed the e-mail discussions into a 2" binder, and plan to use the material as reference and source material as the Task Force on Technology undergoes metamorphosis to a Technology Committee, a smaller body, more like a board of directors, able to make contracts, & agreements, commit funds, and set policy.
  The membership of the new body is to be named by the City Council on October 10. Wish me good speed.
  I look forward to seeing the summary of this exchange.
• I would like to thank Information Renaissance, Bob Carlitz and Laurie Maak for putting forth the tremondous effort to help the K-12 education community understand these complex issues. It has been a great benefit and is a great start to helping us ensure the very best in communications services are available to our schools.
• I really didn't have the time to fully participate or to even read all of the traffic. However,
  Generally, a great idea, but way too time intensive for me personally.
  I hope to use the archives extensively to review some of the discussions.
• Thanks to the organizers for providing
  this forum! Very thought-provoking,
  overwhelming, and helpful!
• I personally considered the seminar very valuable
  and interesting. Representing a funder of the seminar,
  I felt it was most appropriate for me not to become
  actively engaged in the dialogue - but I was quite active
  as a lurker!
  
  I also consider the whole process to be a model of
  effective and robust use of Internet media - a dynamic
  demonstration of the value the Web.
• What we needed was some authoritative input. For example,
  my reading of the law is that the Act fairly narrowly
  defines 'carrier' and that definitey does not include
  Internet service proficers. Further, the Act prohibits
  cross-subsidization so we cannot use funds collected from
  the carriers to support non-regulated ISPs in the quest of
  universal service.
  This is not a question that the average school teacher
  or administrator can handle -- we needed somebody literate
  in the Act. And never got it. Consequently, we had a lot
  of continuing discussion on what I think is a moot point.
  
  b
• My interest in the subject is related to schools and how they use the new resources. Much of the technical content was over my head. That, and the time involved, were the reasons I did not remain active. I'd love to see another project formed which would limit itself to school-related issues. This one was done very well, indeed!
• IMHO this was an invaluable part of my personal technological
  education. The impact of the '96 Telecomunications Act has
  yet to be felt by the general public or by the education &
  library communities. This seminar has given me more
  information to help deal with the coming media wars(e.g.,
  Time-Warner vs. Fox) that will vie for the educational markets.
  
  Bob, thanks again.
  Dennis
• I ended up not participating very much - probably because I
  know too much about the topic already.
• All the information given in this seminar is valuable
  for me in terms of everything. I expect to use the
  information in my courses and in the future as a
  teacher. I grreately appreciate your colaboration
  with me in this matter.
• Yes, we need similar seminars, however, less technical.
• It was GREAT!!!!
  
• I had no expectations. I don't expect the FCC to listen to me.
• Perhaps the same seminar should be done again in 12 months, and see if any progress has been made.
  Thanks for reminding me to complete the survey.
  
  Best to all,
• I definitely want to see as well as particpate in similar
  activities. I was unable to actively participate
  as much as I initially intended because my school
  and research schedule demanded more time than I had
  anticipated.
  
  Everyone involved with the production of this
  seminar deserves a JOB WELL DONE and a four-day pass
  to Cancun.
  
  
• I generally enjoy participating is discussions like this one because it is educational for me. There is a great deal of technology that I need to know more about. Reading the comments of others provides different points of view that I may not consider otherwise. Even though *I* may not be able to contribute as much as I would like, I certainly learn a lot!
• As stated earlier as a community organization we needed a way to allow special residents access to the internet. This would allow kids that use this person (block captain) an expanded view of the world around them. All done without funding of any sort. We have linked up with a local computer supplier to give us the used computers he takes in on trade. We distribute these to the block captains which in turn give access to the kids in their immeadiate neighborhood. Thanks for the great idea!!, looking forward to the next session, hope it does not have as much email as this one did some days I received over 40 letters, too much for me to read in one or two sittings. Thanks again Michael Gilman
• I gained knowledge. In that sense, the course was a
  success for me. I also gradually lost interest in
  the subject. In that sense, the course was actually
  counter-productive.
  
  I am probably more likely to return to the subject in
  the future on a "need to know" basis, as some of the
  issues actually begin to intrude more on my
  life/work/interests. Right now, though, except in rural areas,
  most of the folks I work with (and much of my work is
  with "at risk" kids and the homeless) already have access
  to a degree that is comparable to their access to a public
  library. They do not yet have access to a degree that
  is comparable to their access to a phone. But in some queer
  ways, that level of access may be an appropriate one,
  or at least an acceptable one. In the allocation of
  resources, once a certain access-level threshold has been
  meet, I know of many uses for our resources that I would
  give higher priority among the folks I work with than
  greater internet access. But I also understand the need
  to act now to establish structures that will determine
  how "access" take form in the future.
  
  Thanks for doing this. I really appreciate all the
  work you put into this.
  
  ;-)
  Wade
  
• I thought the seminar overall was very well done.
  However with young children in my family and a full time job as
  district librarian it was quickly over my head. I would have
  been much better off trying to do this type of thing in the
  summer months.
  Thanks for your efforts
• Perhaps, strands of conversations where participants of varying levels of concern and interest can carry on side-bars (for lack of a better term).
• I found the experience stimulating, yet depressing. Although use
  of the Internet (and by extension implications for future educational
  telecommunications potentials) has revolutionized the way my students
  and I learn, I'm becoming convinced that by and large we, as a nation,
  are not ready to take advantage of what's being offered to us,
  and fear that this opportunity will be squandered, through lack of
  vision, insight and knowledge. If multimegabit connections magically
  appeared to every desktop in the nation's schools tomorrow, a year
  from now, they'd not be used. There is so much work to be done
  to make people (read: students, parents, neighbors, decisionmakers)
  aware of the valid uses and benefits this technology could bring
  to learning, such a short time frame to accomplish this, and the
  disconnect between pioneers and practitioners form a daunting
  set of conditions. The importance of your efforts to bridge these
  gaps is one source of encouragement that I hope can kindle an
  even brighter flame. Thanks for your excellent work!
• This seminar became too overwhelming too fast for me. I spend a great deal of time on email and web
  and I simply could not keep up. 40-50 email messages a day is too much.
  The way I received them on my email system was simply a straight stream, no threading.
  My impression was too much and too long of a time period. This was not a dialog,
  but fairly typical ravings of pedagogues on a soap box. There were a few thoughtful
  pieces, but I am not sure how this information is going to be sort to offer
  any reasonable information to advance policy on univeral access.
  If this were to be run again, I would cut the participant list in
  half, and shorten the time to three days. I might also try to sort
  the groups a little more. Perhaps organizing 10 people from various
  corners of debate to discuss and "report out" to the next level.
  Sorry I wasn't an active voice, but I lost interest quickly due to the
  volume and content of the work.
• I was not able to participate in the seminar. If you would like
  to remove my name from the participants, please do so. I don't want to
  skew to result. Thank you
• Added those above, did not anticipate this comment box, sorry.
• I enjoyed reading the articles, but we are so far behine
  with the technology in our district, that I feel I could
  not adequately participate in the discussions. Perhaps
  in the future I would be better prepared.
• I feel that this is a very valuable service and you guys did a great job. I have already used the information gained through this seminar in talking with the Govenor and other Idhao legistlators. I am also in the process of getting informaiton to the Technology Coordinators and Librarians in the state of Idaho.
  I feel that there should be similar activities as far as this type of seminar in the future.
• Topics covered by the participants give insights on many
  issues. The ideas presented helps us to develop ours,
  reinforcing arguments made before and giving new ideas of
  how to develop programs in our Campus. I specially liked
  the discussion about the amount of money to be aloted for
  each component of a technological plan: *equal* amount for
  equipment, trainning and manteinance. Having the computers
  in shcool is not enough, it the faculty does not know how
  to used or have no insights on how to integrate its use in
  the curriculum. Once this is accomplished, what happends
  when the computers don't work? Who will come to have the
  equipment up and running properly?
• I think the idea is an excellent one..athe process just needs to be revised a bit.....
• As I have said before in posts to the
  seminar one aspect of any topic is
  the widest possible view is necessary
  in addition to the particular viewpoints
  involved in that wide view.
  
  Both points of view must be
  emphasized.
  
  Thanks for your time and effort.
• This was excellent work. I hope you will be doing more such events in the future.
• I'd like to try it again in the future. I looked at the
  subject material today and it looks very informative. I guess
  I'm one of those that need someone to remind me that I the
  posting and seminar is going on and take part in it.
• I subscribed to the seminar hoping to acquire more scope about our country's telecommunications infrastructure, specifically how it is being integrated into schools, dessiminated across the population and what role the government does/could have in these. Frankly, the seminar proved advanced for me at times. But this is okay. (I'd rather feel challenged than bored.) I will use all of the messages I printed our for my edification--even though they are surely somewhat dated already.
  
• Yes on a topic of which I had adequate knowledge to converse.
  I felt very inadequate as I was not as "techie" as many of the people in the seminar. Would like to have some prior info for preparation.
  
• Seminar participants consisted almost entirely of educators and library staff. Nearly all opinion and interpretation was slanted to point of view widely held by librarians and educators. I doubt if the opinions of this group would reflect the opinions of the population as a whole. And, because of this should not be weighted any more heavily than any other group trying to lobby for a particular set of Telecommunications Act implementation rules.
  
  This tye of seminar would be better served if it systematically included participants who were not the primary beneficiaries of the outcome. In other words, the seminar needs to include people who have to pay the bills not just people who benefit from the bills.
• Thank you Bob Carlitz, Laurie Maak, Kathy Rutkowsky and everyone involved.
• Answer to 3d. It really depends...
• As I have already mentioned, I have been charged with finding out as much as possible on the subject of universal access, and I can't imagine a better forum for preparing myself. Thank you all for your hard work and effort that went into putting together one of the better online seminars I have participated in. I would hope this would be an ongoing activity.
• Overall I think that the seminar was exceptionally well done,
  there seemed to be a majority of comments from a few, and I
  wasn't sure how to respond to a statement, the typical method
  would have been to the person making the comment and having it
  posted for review, instead, responses were required to be sent
  to the mailing list and then posted from there, this was confusing.
  
  I believed this cut down the number of responses to the system and
  limited the number of respondents.
  
  I learned about the activities of many other areas of the country, and the
  practices mainly of other school districts. What is still uncertain, is how
  propritary schools not public schools are covered under the act. We are
  a propriatary school and a non profit so these issues concern me. It seems
  as if the act is silent on these issues. While I understand we are in the
  minority, we still serve an important service to those non profit agencies we
  serve.
  
  I would like to see more of these forums in the future, but with a simpler method
  of responding to an individual statement, almost a recorded "chat".
  
  Thank you for allowing us to participate
  
  Virginia Viles
• I came on board a little late, and therefore my participation was hindered by the fact that I felt a little lost in the process.
• Excellent forum for discovering valuable information.
  I am using the information I gained in my everyday
  business activities. I hope we don't have to go
  through another period like this anytime soon in
  communications policy, but I'm not holding my breath.
  We are living in interesting times.
• I intend to use the information from the seminar in the discussions my district is having as we wire all of our buildings for internet access and set up our own networks within the district.
• I say no because of the time factor. With some modifications
  as I commented on earlier, my feelings might be different.
• This was my first on-line seminar. I learned much through observation and plan to participate in others.
• Thanks for making this seminar possible.
• THERE SHOULD BE SEMINAR'S LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE.
  SOMETIMES WE ARE LIMITED IN IDEAS THAT ARE AVAILABLE
  ACROSS THE NATION. THIS SEMINAR GAVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE
  FROM ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE HOW
  THIS ACT WILL AFFECT US ALL. SAW DIFFERENT VEIWS THAT
  WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO ME OTHERWISE.
  
  THANKS FOR GIVING US A VOICE IN THIS!!
• An ongoing or open forum to exchange ideas on universal service
  might be helpful. Given the rapidity of change, ideas put
  forth last month are already stale.
  Overall, it was a good effort.
  
  Thanks
• I thought this was a very good seminar, unfortunately I
  was not able to participate in it do to a couple of reasons.
  First, I was overwhelmed by the quantity of postings. Second,
  In addition to all of my normal duties here, I was providing
  13 school districts with engineering assistance for grant
  applications they were writing for Internet access. Had I
  not been so busy, I would have been able to participate in
  seminar.
  
  I did find many of the postings to be informative once I was
  able to read them, usually days after they were posted.
  
  Overall, I would say it was a very good seminar, and I think
  there should be similar activities in the future.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Charlie Kirchhoff
• Sorry for my non-participation. In retrospect, I should not
  have signed up as web-only since I did not make time to even
  visit the page during the seminar. If I had been in via email
  also I would have at least seen discourse and been goaded into
  participating. As it was, I let the rest of my life take over.
  
• I would recommend this (rather demanding) type of seminar only to
  someone who was deeply involved in the topic.
• Hopefully will have more time & issues will be of more
  immediate relevance.
• The reading commitment exceeded the time I had available.
• Unfortunately, the seminar was offered at the busiest time of my year, and I didn't take enough time to make it as worth while as it could have been. The seminar's chief value for me was one of awareness of all the issues. It seems to be a continually changing topic, so would be a good seminar to repeat in the future. Thanks for an interesting seminar!
• Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to organize this seminar and stay on top of it. A huge job, well done!
• Sorry I am so late in forwarding this to you. I enjoyed
  what was going on even if I used it as a "lurker", given
  the expertise of the other users. My address is my private
  "site" since our School District is not (yet) connected
  probably to the Internet..but we're acoming! Many many
  thanks to you both for your good works. Best regards, Paul
• I had full intent to participate more in this seminar.
  Unfortunately, we were visited by Hurrican Fran and were without
  electricity for a week. Being a week behind in e-mail, etc.,
  made it impossible for me to catch up!
• Most of it was very technical in nature. We are a small
  private school just starting to use the Internet. Much of
  what was discussed was beyond my expertise and beyond the
  capability of the school.
• Greta job. Very visionary for future seminars using
  this medium.
  
  Congrats!!!
• I participated in the seminar in order to write two stories for my publication.
  I did write those stories, and therefore the seminar fulfilled my original purpose
  of joining. In addition, I gained some knowledge about the school provision of universal service,
  and that was very valuable. That info is good to know as I will continue to cover the FCC and its
  universal service initiatives.
• I did not fully participate in this seminar due to my problems
  with internet access--I have resolved those problems now but was
  involved with having to take my cpu to another site to have
  configured etc., thus delaying my participation--and found that
  I had gotten so far behind, I couldn't catch up! Keep up
  the good work.
• Definitely other such seminars. Open the library for browsing
  at least four to six weeks before the actual seminar begins.
  During the seminar give the option of changing from digest
  form to immediate postings. I missed about 75% of some of
  the discussions by being unable to retreive the digest
  material.Printing out the digest took so much paper and ink.
• When the time comes for Australia (ie new regime set to
  commence July '97), these comments and this type of seminar
  will definitely be a consideration in facilitating discussions.
  In fact, legislation is being drafted and commented upon as we speak.
  
  Thanks to all who had a hand in organising this seminar. I hope to be involved
  in more of these "on-line" seminars in future. A job well
  done by all!
• It was great in that I began to understand broader issues.
• I think this seminar is a good model for online discussion around a very specific topic.
  I regret that I didn't have more time to participate. But I learned a lot from reading
  the discussion. My project at Compumentor involves technical and telecommunications
  assistance and support for schools, so the issue of Universal Access is important but
  not critical to my work.
  
  I think similar activities would be useful.
  
  thank you for organizing and moderating the discussion.
  
  Hilary
• I'm sorry that I was unable to participate more in the seminar. My work load did not allow me to do much more than read the postings.
• The value for me was access to a professional community and experts around a common topic of interest. It enabled me to participate in internal staff discussions at a deeper level and to more fully understand the commonalities and differences among states regarding the implications of the Telecommunications Act. Thanks for organizing this opportunity. I would be very interested in participating in future seminars.
• Yes, similar activities should be planned for the future
• A good effort. What's needed - especially for participants
  perhaps - is some closure on "what's going to be done with
  these materials: who is editing/organizing them, where are
  they going, what can we expect to happen next with them.."
  
  If you know of any site tracking the "E rate" discussion or
  relevant listservs, I'd suggest adding a postscript on
  your Web page (assuming it's still getting some hits)
  pointing people to that.
• Unfortunately, since I travel a lot in and out of the state, especially the during the five weeks that the seminar progressed, I couldn't fully participate.
• It was hard to keep up with the large volume of info.
• Good Job! Hope to hear from you all soon.
  
  
  Thanks,
• As a lawyer working primarily for public schools and colleges, I hope to follow the legal and technical trends to advise clients how to bring E-mail and Web access to schools and classrooms, if possible, without breaking the bank, and without making promises they can't keep about budget, speed, or scope of access for students, teachers, parents, and community;
• I unfortunately was unable to participate in the seminar except by
  reading the material. The technical information was way over my
  head, but I learned a tremendous amount just by reading! I printed
  everything and sent it to our consultants with the expectation
  that they will read and digest. We are looking for ways to get
  universal access into our low-income housing developments
  through Neighborhood Networks and Campus of Learners - two
  HUD initiatives designed to put computer learning centers into
  low income housing. We didn't know exactly what we were
  searching for, but have come up with some names and contacts
  of people throughout the country to contact. I also learned
  about the competition between wire and wireless for the approved
  way to communicate all this. I am a tyro, but intuitively feel that
  wireless will be the solution. Thanks for the opportunity to
  participate even though I did not contribute anything. This
  was extremely valuable.
• Good Job,
  
  Thank You,
  
  Gene Chesser
  President TIUG