Universal Service/Network Democracy
Week Four (September 16 - September 22)

In the fourth week of the Universal Service/Network Democracy on-line seminar, we will go over the following topics:

• Summary of the Third Week of the Seminar

• New Developments in the Seminar

• Remaining Topics to Discuss

• Aggregation and Competition

• Assignments

• How the Seminar Functions
• What is Authoritative
• Registration
• What's Required
• How to Post
• Etiquette
• Library Resources
• How This All Works (coming soon)

• Schools and Libraries: 15 people, 27 messages (46%)
• Universities: 4 people, 6 messages (10%)
• State and federal government: 5 people, 8 messages (14%)
• Business: 9 people, 18 messages (30%)

In addition to the seminar's e-mail-facilitated discussion a new component was added last week. This involved an on-line survey which highlighted topics relating to the previous week's discussion on the scope of Universal Service subsidies. The on-line survey proved to be an effective mechanism for increasing the percentage of seminar registrants who were able to make direct contributions to the discussion each week. So far 89 people have completed the survey, including 46 who had not previously participated in the on-line discussion. If you have yet to complete the survey, please do so now. It takes just a few minutes to fill out, and it helps address some of the important issues that we are trying to tackle in the seminar.

Results of the survey on the scope of Universal Service are now available on-line. The on-line summary of results will be updated periodically as more people complete the survey. In addition to a numerical tabulation of the results, we have also compiled the additional comments that people entered on their survey forms. You will find a number of insightful remarks among these comments.

Here is a brief overview of the survey results:

1. Purpose: 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?

Results were split, with nearly 2/3 defining the purpose as equity and 1/3 defining it as a public right. Many commenters felt that the question was ambiguous and suggested that Universal Service should serve both of these goals.

My own interpretation of these phrases was that a "public right" implies that all citizens should have access to the resource, while "equity" implies that there should be no disparities of access. Several of the commenters came up with better statements than this, and I would welcome further discussion of this point during the upcoming week.

2. Educational Needs: In terms of the needs of teachers, students and library patrons, what types of telecommunications services are of the current greatest interest to schools and libraries?

Almost everyone identified Internet Data Services as a major need. Approximately 40% cited Voice and Video. One commenter raised the issue of digital convergence, which is an important enough topic to merit separate discussion.

3. Breadth vs. Depth: 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?

The majority (60%) of the respondents favor a broad fund with enough money to provide substantial discounts for all covered services.

4. Services to be covered: Which types of services should be eligible for subsidy under the Universal Service Fund?

Site Connectivity was mentioned by almost everyone. 70% listed Upgrades of Telecommunications Capabilities. Both of these items are items which are clearly eligible for Universal Service support under the Telecommunications Act. 50% of the respondents also cited Internal Wiring, Routers and Servers, and Technical Support. Since these are not services in the traditional province of telecommunications service providers, it may be more difficult to include them in Universal Service support, but there is obviously a strong interest in finding the funds for these essential items.

Please consult the on-line summary for a more complete picture.

Highlights of the additional comments from the surveys are as follows:

• Clarification of Universal Service as an equity issue or a public right.
• Using Universal Service to stimulate competition.
• Digital convergence - the coming together of previously disparate telecommunications services.
• Sources of Universal Service funding.
• Availability of "advanced" services to schools and libraries.
• Using Universal Service subsidies to leverage local funding.
• Cost as a barrier to access and equity.
• Removing barriers to public access to government (and other) information.
• Need of local school districts and libraries for assistance and guidance in technology implementation.

These are all important points for us to consider. Many of them have shown up in our previous discussions, but their repeated mention serves to underscore their importance.

The principal topic for the third week's discussion had to do with the allocation of Universal Service subsidies for schools and libraries. This discussion was organized around a set of questions that were posed in the material placed on-line at the beginning of the week. Given the success of the on-line survey for issues of scope we'll be extending the discussion of allocation issues with another on-line survey in the upcoming week. Hence I'll give only the briefest summary of the responses received so far on last week's questions.

Should there be cash grants or vouchers available directly to schools or school districts?

The majority of comments favor discounted services rather than cash grants or vouchers. There is a fear that grants and vouchers would be harder for schools and libraries to administer than discounted services. Few people addressed the positive side of grants and vouchers, which is that they might allow more flexibility than discounted services.

Should there be an "E-rate" (educational rate) defining special discounts for schools and libraries?

Most people interpreted this as an alternative to grants and vouchers, and it received a number of positive comments. The phrase "E-rate" refers to a specific proposal for free connectivity for schools and libraries, something that gives many people pause, since there is a fear of having groups subscribe to a free service whether they need it or not. I would like to encourage further on this topic.

How should one define a bona fide request for telecommunications services? What minimal justifications should a school, library or school district have to offer in support of such a request?

This question was raised because of language in the Telecommunications Act which requires that requests from schools and libraries be certified as bona fide. The majority of respondents favor leaving this matter to local school districts and library systems, although there is a recognition that many such groups may lack the information and knowledge to make wise choices in this area. This is the other side of the coin of the issues relating to technical support and staff development that we have discussed previously.

Should Universal Service subsidies extend to groups which provide educational materials or support for educational organizations, such as universities and colleges or community centers?

This idea has received a lukewarm reaction in comments so far. The majority oppose this as a dilution of the Universal Service fund and an extension well beyond its intended scope.

A new on-line survey will allow for additional input on these issues in the course of the present week.

In addition to the topics listed above, there were a number of other threads of discussion which took place on-line. Of particular note were the following:

• The relative merits of graphical user interfaces (GUI) vs. plain text. While several people advocated limiting Universal Service subsidies to plain text services, others pointed out that GUIs enormously reduce training costs and extend the potential audience for on-line services.

• Wireless technologies. Enthusiastic postings from advocates of new wireless technologies were met with scepticism about the effective reach of such technologies and the ease with which they can be managed by most schools and libraries. Clearly this technology offers much promise, but as with all technologies, it can't be viewed as a one-size-fits-all solution.

• Free e-mail. There were several mentions of Internet services which offset the cost of e-mail accounts through paid advertisements. Services of this type don't really address the infrastructure issues which are the province of the Telecommunications Act. They can't scale to serve whole-school populations, and they are inherently inefficient in the way they use telecommunications infrastructure. Nonetheless they are a very attractive means of introducing people to on-line services and could play a role in initiating such activities in areas where there are not otherwise readily accessible.

• Telecommunications services for the homeless. Several people discussed the practicality of providing such services through schools and libraries.

• Job skills through the use of telecommunications. Several people approached this important issues from different directions - one having to do with the SCANS report and the other having to do with how the availability of telecommunications services in schools and libraries will produce a workforce better able to make use of these services in an effective manner in the workplace.

I hope the preceding brief summary doesn't distort the positions presented during the previous week's discussion. As always, you should consult the original material for the authoritative word on these issues.

The assignments for the third week were a logical extension of previous assignments, namely to participate in the on-line discussion, to provide materials for the library of on-line resources and to complete the on-line survey. We have already discussed the surveys in some detail and have summarized the on-line discussion. You can look directly at the full text of the on-line discussions and the many contributions to the on-line library. We appreciate the effort that people have been putting into the seminar and urge you to continue this work in the next two weeks.

As in previous weeks, there were several new developments on the technical front in the seminar.

As discussed above, the survey capability that was introduced last week will be extended to provide surveys on other topics of interest during the seminar. We have set things up so that the analysis of these surveys can be done automatically as people fill out the survey forms. Availability of a survey on issues relating to the allocation of Universal Service subsidies will be announced in an e-mail message on September 16.

A second new development has to do with the extension of the library of on-line resources. Many new contributions were received during the week, and these have all been linked into the Universal Service/Network Democracy Web site.

• Scope. What services should be covered by the Universal Service subsidies?
• Aggregation. How can schools and libraries share services with each other and with other community groups to maximize efficiency and effectiveness?
• Allocation. Who gets the subsidies and under what conditions?
• Integration. How will new discounts fit in with existing programs?

We have covered questions of scope and allocation in the two weeks just concluded. I propose to deal with the other two issues in the next two weeks, linking them for the purpose of efficiency to two other topics which I mentioned last week:

• Other Proceedings. The present seminar is focussed upon Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act. Other sections of the Act are also of importance for schools and libraries, and in some cases there are separate proceedings under way for these other topics. Some mention has already been made of the proceeding which deals with wireless technologies. I would like to summarize these other proceedings and try to indicate their relevance for schools and libraries.
• Competition. An important principle underlying the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the idea of enhanced competition. We need to consider how Universal Service subsidies can be structured so as to enhance the competitive environment. Many examples exist which show how such an environment can benefit schools and libraries, but it is not a given that true competition will arise without planning and forethought.

We'll approach these topics as follows:

• Week Four: Aggregation and Competition. How can schools and libraries share services with each other and with other community groups to maximize efficiency and effectiveness? And how can these activities be structured so as to enhance competition?
• Week Five: Integration and Other Proceedings. How will new discounts fit in with existing programs? And what other proceedings at the federal and state level should people in schools and libraries be following to assure that there will be adequate coordination of the various programs which impact telecommunications services for schools and libraries?

How can schools and libraries share services with each other and with other community groups? How can these activities be structured so as to foster competition among telecommunications providers?

This week's major topic will be the question of how schools and libraries can aggregate services for increased efficiency and effectiveness. We'll try weaving in with this topic one of the over-arching issues of the Telecommunications Act, namely the goal of increased competition.

These two questions may strike some people as being contradictory, but I think there are some important issues which can be exposed by exploring the connection between these questions. Specifically, there is the issue of how much clout schools and libraries and their allies among community groups, local and state government can exert to help shape the evolving architecture of regional telecommunications infrastructure. There is a definite tension between the shared needs of these groups and the tendencies of a monopolistic industry. The promise of the Telecommunications Act is a less monopolistic environment, and in such an environment community groups and local and state governments should have a stronger voice than in the past.

Insofar as public sector groups can begin to aggregate network traffic, services and support, there will develop new collaborations which can reinforce the abilities of these groups to make use of new telecommunications services. Furthermore, as has been forcefully stated in many messages in this seminar, few of these public sector groups are capable of going it on their own. Hence the development of shared regional infrastructure is a real necessity for them.

A number of questions come to mind in connection with this line of argument:

• What examples exist of effective community collaborations?
• Does the Telecommunications Act promote such collaborations or endanger them? (I'm thinking of provisions such as the prohibition of resale as a potential danger in this regard.)
• How can an enhanced competitive environment help schools and libraries? Are there new services likely to result? Is dramatic price competition likely to occur?
• What structures exist to facilitate needed community collaborations in the development of telecommunications infrastructure? Is this activity typically driven by school districts, municipal governments, community groups, libraries or other organizations?

• Continue to develop summaries of the Comments, Reply Comments and Further Comments in the On-line Repository. Send your summaries to library@info-ren.org so they can be linked into the Web site as part of the Participants' Contributions.

• Post to the on-line discussion group on this week's topic - the aggregation of services and support by schools and libraries and the role of competition in this effort.

• Complete the on-line survey on the allocation of Universal Service subsidies.