Monthly Archives: September 2012

iPads for Students and Teachers: Chance to Win!

Posted on by
Reply

Minnesota-based SOPHIA learning is sponsoring a contest for students and teachers – prizes include one iPad, 30 iPads and a visit from Bill Nye, the Science Guy!

SOPHIA provides online learing modules that compliment traditional learning – in other words, they aim to facilitate flipped teaching for teachers, students and/or parents. Here’s a brief excerpt from their website that I think gives a good glimpse at what they do…

We have pre-structured Pathways in Math and Sciences. Start with one concept, taught in many ways by many teachers, then quiz yourself to see if you’ve mastered the concept. Once you have, you are automatically taken to the next concept to learn. And don’t forget to share your opinion with the SOPHIA community by rating the tutorials along the way.

They are also finalists for the Tekne awards – in the startup category.

To introduce people to their tools, they are inviting teachers, students and schools to register for the site, check out the tutorials and invite others to join to earn chances to win iPads between now and December 2, 2012.

Their offer comes on the heels of a recent report by Leading Education by Advancing Digital (LEAD) Commission that found that the majority of parents and teachers of K-12 students support greater use of technology in education. Here are some more findings from the report…

  • 96 percent of teachers and 92 percent of parents believe that schools’ integration of technology in teaching and learning is important to the education of American students today
  • 54 percent of teachers and 64 percent of parents believe that the role of technology in educating students will become much more important during the next 10 years
  • 61 percent of teachers and 63 percent of parents responded that the country is somewhat or far behind the curve when it comes to American public schools’ use of technology in education
  • 82 percent of teachers and 71 percent of parents believe a greater use of technology would be helpful in connecting learning inside and outside of the classroom
  • 89 percent of teachers and 76 percent of parents would choose to spend $200 per student for an Internet-connected device over $200 per student for new science textbooks
  • 82 percent of teachers believe that they are not receiving the necessary training to use technology to its fullest potential in the classroom
  • 95 percent of teachers and 90 percent of parents believe that home access to high-speed Internet gives students a big or moderate advantage when it comes to classroom performance

It sounds like parents and teacher map be ripe to give programs like SOPHIA a chance.

iPads for Patients in Windom Area Hospital

Posted on by
Reply

I want to thank the folks in Windom for sending me the story from the Windom Area Hospital Beat on use of iPads in the hospital. Using MIRC (Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities) funds, the hospital has purchased four iPads for patients to use while in the hospital…

The iPads are intended to help patients and visitors stay “connected” to their family, friends and the world while they are at Windom Area Hospital. For example, the iPads can be used to: update CaringBrdige sites; access, send or respond to emails; surf the internet; use news or other current event apps; play games; read e-books; and more!

It’s a great way to help time pass more quickly, relieve stress and help patients keep up with work or school to make for a smoother transition back to real life once discharged.

Minnesota Broadband Task Force Latest Report is Out (Sep 2012)

Posted on by
Reply

The 2012 Status Report and Policy Recommendations from the Minnesota Broadband Task Force is out. It was released late last week. Here is the purpose of the report, as stated on the cover…

This document provides a compilation of baseline information the Task Force will use in preparing the 2012 Annual Report and Broadband Plan. In addition, this report includes specific recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders to consider.

It is a lead up  to the Annual Broadband Report that will be submitted in December. Here’s a Readers Digest reading of the report:

First: Progress Towards Broadband Goals:
Broadband Availability at State’s Statutory Speed Goals (provided by Connect Minnesota) measured by percent Household Availability of Broadband At Least 10Mbps Download and 6Mbps Upload. There was an increase in availability from 57.4 percent in October 2011 to 59.92 percent in April 2012.

It’s a quick look at how close the state is coming to ubiquitous access at speeds of 10-20 Mbps (download and 5-10 Mbps up) by 2015. I have to say, at 60 percent, we have a ways to go.

The Task Force is working in subcommittees; the report provides a look at what each group has been doing this year…

Locations – worked on getting the Task Force to a range of locations

Coordination Across Government Levels – have identified and contacted stakeholders and associations at the federal, state and local levels. So far focusing on “Dig Once”, rights of way and permitting issues. Their findings are summarized in the report. Here’s an excerpt…

One possible strategy for incenting existing providers to build to un- and underserved parts of Minnesota is to look at ways of reducing physical and procedural barriers to the actual construction of backhaul or “middle-mile” infrastructure. These potential areas of opportunity have roughly been categorized into two forms of Rights-of-Way (ROW) access; “Dig Once” policies and permitting processes. …

The Task Force’s next action on Dig Once will be to convene conversations with the state’s ROW managers to determine where the opportunities are to use these assets to encourage broadband construction to the un- and unserved parts of the state. The Task Force is working with the state broadband office to convene these discussions and with Connect Minnesota to identify and map where state ROW coincide with the greatest areas of broadband infrastructure need.

Best Practices/Incentives – have reviewed successful ideas from other places. Some ideas have been added as policy recommendations at the end of this report, which I’ll note below.

State of Broadband—Survey, Research, Data – have tracked resources (from Connect Minnesota to OECD) that rank or otherwise report broadband availability, speeds, and adoption. They are surveying Minnesota counties to determine: broadband specific initiatives within counties, whether high speed broadband is being used as an economic development tool, how the county may be using broadband to deliver services, what resources counties may be aware of to assist in broadband deployment or use, and whether any partnerships with other local government entities have been established to address broadband access and use.

Broadband Adoption – have tracked a number of programs aimed at promoting broadband adoption and are working on a broadband awareness website to provide access to digital inclusion tools, they have collecting info on economic impact of broadband, they have created a model of county communications directories.

Monitor/Understand Impact of FCC & PUC Decisions; Cost of Broadband – have provided a summary on activity of FCC from a Minnesota perspective. It’s a nice quick list of which providers have committed to expansion in Minnesota. They have also received a cost of broadband estimate from Elert and Associates, included below:

There’s a glimpse at specific policy recommendations. I want to include them all because I think they are the best indicator of what we’ll see in December…

Education

    • Increase funding to public libraries and schools for computer stations and Internet access to address what can be a primary access point for the “digitally disadvantaged” and reward institutions that increase hours and develop programs to improve access.
    • Award scholarship dollars for broadband access for students, especially those that meet federal poverty guidelines. Again, the playing field will be most level when all students have access to high speed Internet. (Funds could be leveraged with tax credits to companies that also subsidize these programs.)
    • Education Tax Credit for Broadband – (SF 979/HF 1237 in 2010) Expand the current list of education tax credits to include monthly broadband service. Currently, Minnesota taxpayers can receive a credit of up to $1,500 for education related expenses. This proposal would not expand the size of the credit; just the list of eligible items to include broadband service. Broadband adoption continues to be an issue with lower income residents. This credit would help increase the number of consumers who either are on the fence about getting broadband service or in a financial situation where they have to consider giving up the service.

Infrastructure Investment

    • Provide a tax credit or grant to incent broadband providers to build in unserved areas. Examples include the Mississippi broadband technology tax credit,29 the Idaho matching grant program and the Wisconsin sales tax exemption and income tax credit. Coordinate with Connect Minnesota to provide target areas that are not served and keep these areas in the forefront of the state’s efforts. Lists should be published by county/census tract at a designated frequency.
    • Extending the central office equipment exemption to the purchase of fiber optics and broadband equipment – Minnesota currently has a sales tax exemption on equipment purchased for use in a central office. The exemption does not apply to fiber optics which are necessary to deploy higher bandwidth speeds that meet the state broadband goals. The 2009 Broadband Task Force Report stated that state tax incentives encourage deployment as well as adoption (2009 Report, page 7832).
    • A program or mechanism that would coordinate rural broadband installation with State and Federal programs assisting hospitals, schools, libraries, public safety, etc. in obtaining broadband.
    • Implement a formal process (see “Dig Once” discussion above) to coordinate highway construction projects and broadband deployment. As an example, Arizona implemented SB1402 or the “Digital Arizona Highways Act of 2012” which allows the state to install broadband conduit in connection with a rural highway construction project if funding is received to cover the cost.
    • Develop a data base similar to the California Fiber Collaboration Database.The Fiber Collaboration Database allows broadband providers to view upcoming construction projects, notify Caltrans of their interest in including broadband infrastructure in the project, and provides an opportunity for collaboration among companies interested in joint trenching opportunities.

Health Care

    • Provide incentive for rural sites that collaborate together for broadband projects, telehealth services, interoperability and information exchange.

Adoption

    • Facilitate public/private partnership program(s) designed to deliver free or discounted computers to disadvantaged K-12 children in Minnesota. Examples include: provider-led discount offers (Comcast Internet Essentials, CenturyLink Internet Basics); non-profit efforts (Connect Minnesota’s Every Community Online, PC’s for People, Connect2Compete). The Connect Kentucky Computers 4 Kids (C4K) is, also, an example of a program that has successfully fostered cooperation among private partners, corporate foundations and state government to place free computers into the hands of underprivileged and disadvantaged children.
    • The Minnesota Broadband Task Force (2009 Report, page 9035) encouraged the legislature to consider public/private partnership models to make funding available for technology training, production and adoption in communities at the margins of technology. Could include training local nonprofits and agencies who work with the communities in need of digital literacy training. One example is the Washington D.C. digital inclusion grant program.

Ongoing Resources

    • In its January 2012 Report, the Task Force identified the establishment of an ongoing, post-Task Force mechanism within state government for high-speed broadband focused efforts as a future recommendation. The current consensus of the Task Force is in support of establishing such a resource; and of working to identify what type of entity would best serve the state so that a focus on broadband will remain an ongoing concern. The Task Force, therefore, will explore a variety of potential ongoing mechanisms with a plan to present and recommend options in a future report.

I wish there was something I could point to and say – that is going to make the difference. Right now I don’t know that I see any game changers on the list – unless I hear that there is some financial muscle behind some of the incentives mentioned above. The report alludes to the ARRA funding that has gone into the state over the last couple of years; that was a game changer!

It is interesting that this update is being published before the elections. Folks who want to raise the issue/opportunity of broadband in the elections could use this short list to build questions for candidates. I suspect the Task Force will cater their December report based on the results of the fall elections and will hopefully get into more details and perhaps more game changing recommendations then.

Tekne Finalists Announced: MIRC partners celebrate

Posted on by
Reply

We are very pleased to share the list of Tekne finalists; we are so proud to be on the list. The Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities (MIRC) project made the short list for innovative Collaborative Programs. We are humbled to be in such good company with the other finalists:

Innovative Collaboration

Also it’s exciting because earlier this year the Blandin Foundation made a strategic decision to continue efforts to promote better broadband around the state. Communities are invited to check out the website to apply to participate in the new Blandin Broadband Community Program.

The awards will be given out on November 1 at the Tekne Award ceremony.

Here are the other finalists that were announced last night. (I’ve bolded the companies based outside of the Twin Cities.):

Software – established:

  • GE Capital Feel Services
  • JAMF Software
  • Open Access Technology International

Software – small and growing:

  • Code 42 Software
  • Savigent
  • Third Wave systems

EDUTECH

  • eLumen Collaborative
  • St Cloud State University
  • UofM Rochester

Startup

  • Sophia Learning
  • SparkWeave

Technology Excellence in NP

  • GiveMN
  • MacPhail Center for Music
  • The Works

CleanTech & Energy

  • Biovation Holding
  • Sheerwind
  • TransUNImission

Life Science – established

  • 3M
  • Starkey Hearing Technologies
  • Vital Images

Life Sciences – small and growing

  • Cardio3 BioSciences
  • Circle Biologics
  • OrthoCor

Mobile & Communication Technologies

  • MakeMusic
  • MN Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities
  • Starkey Hearing Technologies

Advanced Manufacturing

  • 3M
  • Seagate Technology
  • Top Tool

Computer Hardware

  • Imation (Dataguard)
  • Imation (RX Media Source)
  • Network Instruments

Robotics

  • Parr Systems
  • ReconRobotics
  • Robotics Innovation

Tech Services & Consultants – established

  • Digital River
  • PeopleNet
  • Thomson Reuters

Tech Services & Consultants – Small & Growing

  • Agosto
  • SWAT Solutions
  • Trissential

Online VP Debate for Students: October 11

Posted on by
Reply

I’m excited to share the following info from Connected Nation…

Online Vice Presidentnial Debate
October 11, 1 PM EST

‘Our Voice Our Future’ event to engage students nationally in upcoming VP debate at Centre College

Today, the Global Center for Connected Campuses (GC3) announced Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP) as a promotional partner and participant in the 2012 Vice Presidential Debate: Our Voice Our Future event. The interactive event will be held at Centre College, host of the only Vice Presidential debate, and will be broadcast live online in classrooms and on campuses across the country.

This one of a kind event gives teachers and students a front row seat to debate day activities and a forum to give reactions and discuss the general election. Students and teachers are encouraged to reserve their spots at http://www.2012vpdebate.com.

Harvard’s IOP Director and former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson will be participating from Boston and leveraging IOP’s network to engage students and associations nationally prior to the event.

“As the GC3 partnership was being formed, we anticipated that relationships heretofore unimagined might develop,” said John A. Roush, president of Centre College. “The opportunity to partner with Trey Grayson and Harvard’s Institute of Politics on our inaugural project realizes this hope. It will stand tall among other such relationships that will be formed over time, all of which will be profoundly good for students and faculty here at Centre, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and across the nation.”

“We all know how important the 2012 elections are to our nation’s future, especially to students and Millennials who will become tomorrow’s leaders,” said Trey Grayson, director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics. “The ‘Our Voice Our Future’ project will help encourage students from across the country to engage in the political process this fall, and I am excited this effort will be initiated from my native state.”

The partnership with Harvard’s Institute of Politics adds further prestige to an event that continues to build momentum, said Connected Nation President and COO Tom Ferree. “Having Harvard’s Institute of Politics come on board with this effort further affirms that GC3 will make an impact on the way technology is used in the classroom,” Ferree said. “The Our Voice Our Future event will truly be a milestone effort bringing the debate experience to students across the country.”

Last week, Centre College, in Danville, Ky., along with Connected Nation and 10/20 Digital announced the GC3 partnership, which aims to integrate technology in the liberal arts campus setting. The Our Voice Our Future event will be the first expression of the partnership by giving students access to powerful political thought leaders and a direct channel for communication among peers about the general election via online technology.

Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP) was established in 1966 as a memorial to President Kennedy and aims to inspire undergraduates to consider careers in politics and public service. Centre College’s success hosting the 2000 debate between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman was hailed “as close to flawless as humanly possible” by the Associated Press. This year, Centre College is using technology and innovative social media strategies to give high school and post-secondary students from Kentucky and around the world a chance to experience the debate.

The 2012 debate will engage K-12 and post-secondary students from Kentucky and other states in technology-enabled debate focused activities, including:

  • The creation of a debate-centered curriculum that can help guide classrooms in civics education lessons. These educational activities will prepare classrooms, teachers, and students to participate in live debate-day events, as well as other GC3-oriented debate opportunities, such as the GC3 debate webpage resources. These activities, along with a live debate-day event, will also assist GC3’S mission to highlight how technology can connect students, teachers, classrooms, and campuses to enhance and improve learning.
  • GC3 plans a student-populated round table discussion on the afternoon before the debate takes place. This event will include students drawn from high schools, colleges, and universities participating live and on-line.

GC3 is exploring innovative, technology-driven ways to enhance education for students across the nation with partners 10/20 Digital, an independent broadband consulting firm and affiliate of national non-profit and GC3 partner Connected Nation, by:

  • Hosting the Connected Campus Summit on the Centre College campus, which will provide a forum for national educational leaders and administrators to learn and explore leading practices with regard to technology use for effective higher education.
  • Establishing a technology laboratory at Centre that will become the operational home of GC3 and where the education community can explore new technologies and applications, providing ample opportunities for technology partners to participate.

Minnesota has a long tradition of online debates. Minnesota E-Democracy was home to some of the first interactive online debates, which I think started in 1994. I know I started participated in 1996. Back then the cutting edge technology was email and email lists, but we got citizens to initiate questions and candidate to answer them and it felt like real-time, even if real-time meant over the course of a day. And it was one of the few times many of us felt that the world was flattening to the point where we could ask a question – and expect and answer.

In 2000, a team from Minnesota spearheaded much of the online outreach for the first online Presidential Debate: Web, White and Blue. In fact some of the curriculum we developed for that project is still available online.

More information added 10/2/2012 based on email from Connect MN:

I want to follow up with you regarding the “Our Voice Our Future- Interactive webcast for students to discuss the 2012 Vice Presidential Debate on October 11th” event for high school and post-secondary students and teachers taking place at 12 noon CST on October 11th via a live, interactive webcast.  This is a non-partisan event aimed at high school and post-secondary students and teachers that will be moderated by Kentucky Educational Television’s Renee Shaw and Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes in partnership with Centre College and the Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

Student participants from states across the U.S. will gather to discuss the 2012 Presidential race, the role of debates in American politics, how noteworthy debates have influenced past Presidential campaigns, and topical issues of public policy.  Our Voice Our Future will also showcase and discuss the many ways that technology and social media are helping evolve the way youth in America gather, digest, and share news about public policy and politics.  Students will have the opportunity to submit questions via Twitter and Facebook to a moderated panel and follow the discussion online in addition to the live feed.

The event will take place at 12 noon CST with a total running time of 2 hours, but participants will be able to join and leave within that window. Additionally, Centre College will provide discussion guide materials to help teachers and students prepare for participation in the event.

Centre College, Kentucky’s premier higher education institution, is hosting its second Vice-Presidential Debate in 2012. In 2012, Centre wishes to employ its newly created Global Center for Connected Campuses (GC3) in partnership with Connected Nation to engage high school and post-secondary students from across the nation in technology-enabled debate focused activities and discussion.

Teachers can register for the event online and will receive the discussion guide materials and webcast log-in instructions via a follow-up email.  The event is being offered at no cost to all students and schools regardless of the amount of students that would like to participate.  Additionally we are asking students and classrooms to submit video questions to be a part of the webcast.  Questions should be submitted by October 5th to LHightower@connectednation.org.  The video can be any type or quality and we recommend a short (less than 2 minute) submission using a tablet or smartphone.

Please see the attached flyer or visit http://www.2012vpdebate.com to register and access additional information about the event; and please feel free to share this information with anyone you believe would find it of interest.

7 Southwest Minnesota Communities Going Wireless

Posted on by
Reply

In January, we mentioned that SMBS was doing trials for wireless service in Southwest Minnesota – in tandem with their fiber to the home initiative SW Minnesota. Apparently the trials have gone well. According to a recent press release…

LocaLoop Inc. through its wholly owned subsidiary, SynKro Southwest, has signed a five year contract to expand SynKro 4G wireless fixed and mobile broadband Internet service to eight rural communities and surrounding areas in southwestern Minnesota.

The contract with Southwest Minnesota Broadband Services (SMBS) follows a successful six-month trial installation in Bingham Lake and continued network build out and testing for the other seven rural communities.

It’s a nice example of a community that recognizes that fiber and wireless isn’t an either/or option.

 

Video is a tough business for small telcos and cable companies

Posted on by
Reply

Thanks to Ann Higgins for sending me a couple of articles on small broadband providers. It’s interesting to see the impact of video on business. And it’s interesting to see shared problems between small telecommunications companies and cable companies. A sign of how similar the providers are – despite different modes of delivering services.

According to Telecompetitor…

The nation’s smallest telephone companies saw their operating margins increase by 5.3% in 2011 to an average of 10.3%, reversing a downward trend they experienced in 2009 and 2010, according to a comprehensive financial study of the small telco industry completed recently by the Telergee Alliance. …

On the non-regulated side, small telco operating margins increased 13% after increasing 4.9% the previous year. On the regulated side, operating margins were up 1.3% after dropping 15.4% the previous year. The reversal on the regulated side was particularly surprising considering that telcos continued to see declines in voice lines, which decreased an average of 3.7% and in inter-carrier compensation (ICC), where minutes declined an average of 8.9% on the interstate side and 12.1% on the intrastate side. …

Cost saving measures and better predicting of usage/budget seem to be key for improving margins on the regulated and non-regulated sides.

It does seem that video remains a tough nut to crack…

One area where small telcos continue to struggle to make a profit is video. Margins in that line of business dropped 6.8% in 2011.

“Content costs are constantly getting higher,” commented Skidmore.

Video is not just a challenge for small telcos. According to Multichannel News…

“The FCC has data showing that the number of cable systems has significantly decreased over the past five years,” said ACA President/CEO Matt Polka. “ACA believes that this trend reveals significant problems in the market for the delivery of video programming, particularly for smaller multichannel video programming distributors serving smaller markets and rural areas,” said Polka.

The FCC data, according to ACA, shows that since October 2005, the number of cable systems has declined 26% from 7,208 to 5,312, and that for the smallest systems — those under 10,000 subs — that percentage drop is even greater. …

Together, according to ACA, the numbers add up to a decrease in smaller cable operators that the FCC should break out from its report on the overall decrease in systems, saying it could be a an early warning sign, the canary in the headend, as it were, of problems for larger systems.

Broadband Tax: A Short Lived Brainstorm

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this month we mentioned that the FCC was looking at taxing broadband connections. Well it looks like a decision has been made regarding the “taxability” of broadband. Telecompetitor reports…

Hillicon Valley is reporting that the FCC apparently has scrapped the idea of including broadband services in the base of telco revenues against which funding for its broadband Universal Service program, known as the Connect America Fund, would be collected.

The issue remains however – in short where will funding for Connect America Fund come from?

Telecompetitor speculates (or maybe brainstorms)…

If broadband revenues cannot be tapped to support the broadband program, the FCC may have to rely on alternative collection methodologies, such as making assessments on a phone-number basis, including other non-broadband revenues such as text messaging in the contribution base, or continuing to make assessments based on long-distance revenues.

Broadband adoption: beyond use to investment

Posted on by
1

What do you do when as a broadband provider you offer 7 years of broadband services (5 Mbps) for a one-time cost of $300 and some whole communities of people aren’t interested? And actually the initial cost to indicate interest is only a $10 investment.

Google is running up against this situation with their fiber network in Kansas City.

According to the New York Times..

But in July, Google announced a process in which only those areas where enough residents preregistered and paid a $10 deposit would get the service, Google Fiber. While nearly all of the affluent, mostly white neighborhoods here quickly got enough registrants, a broad swath of black communities lagged. The deadline to sign up was midnight Sunday.

Unfortunately for Google and fortunately for the communities, meeting the needs of some of the communities that didn’t step up was one of their big goals. So Google and community leaders set out to get more people to subscribe using some of the following methods.…

  • Google workers set up a tent outside the Ivanhoe community center and urged passers-by to sign up, with the center using a private donation to pay the $10 deposits and giving out Rice Krispies treats.
  • Myron T. Moore, a neighborhood activist in Ivanhoe, walked door to door with a clipboard asking people to write down their name, address and telephone number so the council could sign them up and pay their deposit.
  • Google rolled an ice cream truck through one area, as a woman on a loudspeaker enticed residents to register. Several Google workers walked alongside, answering questions and handing out brochures and ice cream sandwiches.
  • Advertisements ran all weekend on Hot 103 Jamz, a hip-hop and R&B radio station, urging people to sign up for the good of their communities, even if they were not going to get the service.

Is this an adoption issue?

This week, the Minnesota Broadband Task Force heard from Jack Geller that the problem of broadband adoption will take care of itself. That we’re nearing the last segment of adoption curve and there’s not much we can do about getting more people to get online any faster than they woudl organically.

Then why is Google having this problem?

Why are people in some neighborhoods unwilling to commit $10 for Internet infrastructure? And are we (the public, providers, civil society, local government) responsible for encouraging them to make the commitment?

I have been wrestling with this article for days now. I think the answer to that hinges on whether you see broadband as a luxury or a necessity. Also I think the answer reflects a view on investment in the future. Who is responsible for investment in the future? Is it up to the individual or the state government, local government, federal government or is investment even necessary?

Part of the battle for Google and the folks interested in Ivanhoe is getting people to buy into the importance of broadband but also getting them to buy into the idea of investment in the future. In a more affluent area, a $10 investment does not feel as costly as it might be in Ivanhoe. Also assuming home ownership is lower in Ivanhoe and other targeted areas, another challenge is asking people in Ivanhoe to invest in a community where they may have no roots and may not expect to remain on a long term basis.

Investment is a big issue – at the household or community level. Are we willing to invest in the future of our household, our community, our state, our country, our world? Everyone’s answer is different.

Minnesota Broadband Task Force meeting September 11, 2012 – Full Notes

Posted on by
Reply

I’m on the way home from the Broadband Task Force meeting. The morning was spent working on and eventually approving the report that is due this fall. The report details what’s happening around the state and offers some recommendations. Another report will be due near the need of the year. I’ve tried to include the draft recommendations, discussion on the recommendation and results. The list of recommendations was whittled down considerably – many items being extended to the next report.

The also heard from Michelle Landsverk at Impact 20/20 – a great group focused on improving education, workforce and broadband in Northeast Minnesota AND Jack Geller, who gave a presentation on broadband adoption in terms of adoption curve and consideration of wireless access.

10:00-10:15 – Welcome/Public Comments/Approve Minutes

Thief River Falls is a town with 8900 jobs and 8500 people. Houses sell in 30-40 days. It’s like Lake Woebegone without the lake. Northland College (where we are meeting) is set on former Native American dancing grounds. It was a place for meetings and celebrations. About 15 years ago the president of the college got archeological folks to inspect the local area.

10:15-10:30 – Host Welcome (Northland Community and Technical College)

Northland College meets a wide range of students’ needs. Non-traditional ages. New Americans from Minneapolis are coming from healthcare programs. Healthcare is a big program. Aviation mechanics is another program, especially in last 3-4 years. Liberal Arts is big as in every community college. Athletics is a big program that draws students in. We have about 2800 FYE.

We work with UMD and Feds on unmanned aerial programs. We were only college in the world to graduate people in that program last year. And those folks were really recruited for jobs after graduation.

10:30-12:30 – Review final September report draft (working lunch if needed)

Meeting minutes approved.

Open meeting law requires that only people in the room can vote on anything. So the three people on the phone will not be able to vote.

Margaret and Joanna may be able to talk to folks in the Governor’s office. So it makes sense to highlight some of the incentives in the report to those folks.

Going Through the Report – this is the State of the State of Broadband Report. There is another report scheduled, which I understand will include more recommendations.

There are 21 pages of the report and the appendix. (I’ve tried to take notes based on the report on the screen and the discussion. Some abbreviations have been used out of necessity.)

Pg 1 – Introduction – mostly names and roles

P 2 – Committees and leaders

Broadband Availability

This report provides the following information

  • Updates broadband availability
  • Summary of subgroup activities
  • Specific recommendations
  • Materials compiled by subcommittees

Percent of households availability of BB At least 10Mbps down and 6 Mbps up

  • Oct 2011 – 57.4%
  • April 2012 – 59.92%

Pg4 – Locations Subgroups – talks about where meetings have taken place et al

Pg 5- – Coordination Across Government Levels Subgroup

Dig Once/ROW/Permitting Issues in MN

  • Group has focused on Dig Once policy (Exec Oder 13161) and how it might be applied in MN to advance BB build out in un/underserved areas.
  • Working with Association of Counties and Cities
  • It’s a topic of MN and national interest
  • We have recommendations to further the dialog

DIALOG ON THE ISSUE

None

Pg 6 – Best Practices/Incentives

Group has reviewed what’s happening in other areas to spur broadband deployment & has organized legislative panel

Pg 7 – State of Broadband – Survey, Research, Data group

  • Using County survey from Connect MN
    • Talking to folks who are working on surveys such as
    • Center for Rural Policy
    • Akamai
    • American University
    • OECD

DIALOG

Bill, Diane, and Joanna have been sending surveys to counties to learn about initiatives in the county, whether bb is being used as economic development tool, how county is using broadband to deliver services, what resources the county may be aware of and are there partnerships with other local governments. It might not lead to specific conclusions but should give an overview of what’s happening in difference counties. Some responses are thoughtful; some are not.

Maybe we could work on outreach to the counties that haven’t participated in the surveys.

Maybe we can work with economic development folks – EDAs, cities, townships et al.

Maybe we could do counties this year and survey EDA, cities et al next year. The counties do get the gaps between townships.

Pg 8 – Broadband Adoption

Current State of Adoption

  • Overall adoption rate – 72%
  • Low income – 47%
  • Rural 61%
  • Seniors – 32%
  • African Americans 69%
  • Disabled Pop – 45%
  • Hispanics – 49%

Subgroup was established to identify what groups are actively promoting broadband adoption, existing broadband initiatives, economic impact, and strategies to expand broadband use.

Includes a list of groups that are promoting broadband adoption – ranges from libraries to PCs for People. Includes a list of broadband initiatives and ARRA grants.

DIALOG

List of groups doesn’t include C2C (Connect to Compete) – although it’s mentioned.

Add – “please contact us if you want to be added to the list”

It might be helpful to be more specific.

Does it make sense to include Ignite?

Can we include grants for communities that have received grants from outside the Feds too? For infrastructure and adoption?

It makes sense to include deployments in the making as well as completed projects. It would be  nice to see a list of what’s happening in terms of seeing what models are being deployed.

Some things are more controversial – we don’t want this to be a lightning rod for someone to glom onto. The report needs to be sensitive and showing in the aggregate helps.

Maybe we need to create a central database of projects where folks could propose projects to be added.

Is the Dep of Commerce looking at any predictive models? It might be nice to have information on what the results would be if all projects in the ether came to fruition.

It would be nice to have info on the local and hyper local level what’s happening in terms of broadband. Then we could track what projects are working and what activities are working. And that info is important at the local level and well as in the aggregate.

This report is due on Friday so it can’t happen here – but maybe it can happen in the next year.

Predictive modeling might make sense – take a look at what CenturyLink is doing.

Maybe we need to be looking at this in terms of what is getting traction. See if C2C is working. See if the CenturyLink low income deals are helping. See if the Connection American Funds are making a difference. Maybe we need a list of trends we are watching.

There is a central repository of info that can be filtered based on search strategies.

We could include a little narrative on tracking trends – and plan to do that for December. But we don’t have money. Should Connect MN take this on? Should the Department of Commerce take this on? Is this happening at the Department? Is there someone who could do this?

The Department doesn’t have the money now.

Maybe we could turn this around and tell the governor we need resources to do this.

Local engagement is an indicator of broadband adoption success – maybe we need to come up with the list of necessary ingredients for success programs. Can’t do that now – but maybe for next report.

Case studies in the report might be helpful too.

Also we’ve heard – that training works well in some areas and not others. Why? Can we create that toolkit? One that gives options and talks about what works where and why?

We are identifying projects and ideas for the next report.

We need to include Greater MN Telehealth Initiative grant $5.4 million – maybe we could make that a thumbnail. Deer River Schools would be a nice thumbnail too.

These would be great stories for the December report. And we’ve been traveling to gather these stories.

There was a recent article on distance learning in Mankato State on KSTP. It was inferior to Deer River. We should be blowing horns for the best programs.

There’s a table of all ARRA projects. How do we make sure that people can see that these projects listed are either labeled clearly at ARRA funded projects? And/or how should be focus on adoption-only. How to we cater to very political readers? Are we planning to list all of the ARRA projects or just the ones listed now?

[Ann’s note: I realized it might be helpful to see the list that’s generated so much discussion. I’m transcribing below.]

  • Blandin
  • Comm. Service for the Deaf
  • Connected Nation
  • Carver County
  • Enventis
  • Merit Network
  • Mission Economic Development Agency
  • One Economy
  • Portland State U
  • Regents of U of M
  • University Corp for Advanced Internet Development
  • Zayo

PG 11 –

Economic Impact of Broadband – Looks like a list of info on economic impact stats and reports

Strategies to Expand Broadband Adoption –

Pg 13 – a map on broadband adoption in Minnesota (from Connect MN)

Pg 14 – Calls out activities of subgroup:

  • County Internet, Phone and Cable Directory
  • Online Broadband Awareness Site – bought two domain names for the site

DIALOG

Let’s highlight these efforts even more as these are actual actions and not just talking about planning action.

Maybe we can give the model directories to groups such as the Association of Counties.

The FTTH Council is also creating a toolkit.

Pg 15 – Monitor/Understand Impact of FCC/PUC Decisions; Cost of Broadband Subgroup

Members were asked to share research, white papers, position statements, etc that would assist in interpreting and understanding FCC decisions impacting broadband

DIALOG

There are no concerns.

Pg 16 – Specific Policy Recommendations

Anything that got a vote in our group was added to the recommendations list. The lists are prioritized. [Ann’s note – numbers indicate voted received.]

EDU –

  1. Increase funding to public lib and schools for computer stations and Internet access (3)
  2. Scholarship dollars for broadband access for students (3)
  3. Tax credits extended for residential education tax deductions (3)
  4. Reinstate the designated per-pupil technology funds that were in place in recent years (1)
  5. Ask for state scholarships for university students willing to work with digital inclusion efforts – become mentor (1)

DIALOG

If these are to be considered for this year – we need to push them now.

Discussion on #3

–          The recommendations are not to increase use of residential tax credits – but to shift some of it.

–          Low income households do not itemize – so some credits may be left on the shelf. But while it’s means-tested, the means are higher than some other credits.

–          We need to know what the costs might be – as someone will ask about that. Pretend someone made $80,000. They had two smartphones. Does that qualify for the tax credit?

–          Legislators are down on expansion of tax credits overall. They are moving away from per pupil funding.

–          But the state created this category to upgrade infrastructure. It expired 2 years ago. Superintendents like that kind of money because it can’t be touched for other initiatives.

–          There is energy around online learning and devices. Energy around connectivity would be helpful too.

–          It’s nice to see there’s energy in other groups.

–          We don’t want to see people misspend the money.

–          We might add the word additional.

We can include many of these items asis – but we need to cost out so many before we actually recommend these.

Discussion on #5

–          Let’s leave off #5. It’s interesting but doesn’t have an existing path to follow so we need to flesh it out more.

–          Although it was done in Winona. In 2000, we found that seniors were not adopting. So we developed Byte Buddies that paired college students with seniors to mentor on use of technology. Those students got private scholarships.

–          But maybe that’s still too out there for the State. Better at the community level maybe?

–          Maybe we can hold it now – learn more – flesh it out and perhaps add it in the future. We can talk about it in the December Report.

–          We’re going to come back to language since we’re running out of time.

Might be helpful to call out recommendations based on reader role.

Except that we do serve the Governor – so that needs to be our frame.

Need to be specific about which students get support (#4 I think)

This sort of program exists in OH; we could look there.

INFRASTRUCTURE

  1. Provide tax credit or grants to incent bb providers to build in unserved areas (5)
  2. Extending the central office equipment to the purchase of fiber optics and broadband equipment (6)
  3. A program or mechanism that would coordinate rural broadband installation
  4. Coordinate with Connect MN to provide target areas that are not served an keep these areas in the forefront of the state’s efforts
  5. Align state department of Revenue deprecations schedules with the federal IRS
  6. Align state capital gains tax schedule with federal gain schedule
  7. Implement formal process (see dig once) to coordinate state highway construction
  8. Develop a database similar to the Califromnica Fiber Collaboration Database.

Should we include anything after the second recommendation?

Can we incorporate 1 and 4? What are we coordinating with Connect MN now? Nope –

Number one seems like the most important.

We need to make sure that this doesn’t look like the State is telling providers where they need to go next.

HEALTH CARE

  1. Provide incentive for rural sites that collaborate together for broadband projects, telehealth services interoperability and info exchange. This might be a grant program or payment incentive (2)
  2. Provide scholarship assistance for healthcare IT workforce training (3)
  3. Incent use of mobile devices, personal health records and e-visits (1)
  4. Incent redundancy initiatives between profit and non-profit entities (1)

DIALOG

Nonprofits get funding – making it difficult to include for profits.

Maybe we can make #1 grants.

Who would give out the scholarships?

Maybe Department of Health? There is a national effort that ends this year.

Maybe we want to model the state program on the national.

Let’s keep #1 and shelve the others.

ADOPTION

  1. Facilitate public/private partnerships designed to deliver free or discounted computers to disadvantaged K12 children in MN  – referencing program from Connect Kentucky Computers4Kids (3)
  2. Create and/or provide more information about programs to increase home broadband adoption (Such as CenturyLink/Comcast low income options) (1)
  3. Mandate that all state, city and county governments donate used computers to reuse programs.
  4. Telecommuting Tax Credit – companies get up to $1200 tax credits for each telework employee
  5. Recommend the state support and promote free or low-cost computer technology and training (3)
  6. Encourage the legislature to consider public/private partnership models to make funding available for technology training, production and adoption in the community at the margins of technology.
  7. Conduct assessment for list of organizations who are currently working with broadband access
  8. Consider establishing a broadband policy for the state similar to Connect ME HP1174 (2010) – the law promotes policies to maximize sustainable private investment in broadband infrastructure, to maximize federal grant resources and private investment in broadband infrastructure, to maximize

DIALOG

#3 – mandate is not a good word. Maybe we suggest. Or maybe just commit to providing info on how to reuse

Recycling programs need to look at what computers are usable.

There’s an ecosystem of business around recycling and reusing computers.

One of the biggest barriers to adoption is access to a computer. No one is going to pass a law on this – but it might be something we can take to leaders to think about how to get around this.

Let’s shelve #3

Many states have recommendations on a standing broadband office – do we want to add that somewhere?

It was in the first report – we added it last time

#4 is a tough sell as legislators are getting away from tax credits.

Let’s shelve #4

Let’s shelve some of the lower priority items – #5-8.

We need to create language that indicates that this is not an exhaustive list.

Maybe we get rid of the line about preparing 2013 session.

Maybe we just soften that up.

Should we include a bullet point on a broadband office? The Task Force is not a commission. An office might get more buy in. We could pull out the item from 2009 report.

We’ll work on the language and I promise you won’t be upset.

DRAFT IS APPROVED – ADOPTED SEPTEMBER REPORT

12:30-1:00 – Michelle Landsverk from Impact 20/20 http://www.impact2020.org/

Impact 20/20 – a group of leaders working for area economic success. We looked at models that built economy. We looked at the Itasca Project – it’s getting business leaders to focus on the community.

Often we gather folks who are mid-range people in a business – but they don’t have the power to make big decisions. Having the top people in the room has made a difference.

We have a good cross sector of people at the table – edu, bus, nonprofit…

We work on:

  1. Education
  2. Workforce
  3. Broadband

Education – two goals

  1. increase number of on-time graduates
  2. increase students completing post-secondary education

We helped to develop a plan and connected schools with resources. We have 6 pilot projects under way. (Get more info: http://www.impact2020.org/education.html)

Workforce – one goal – increase/support mid-level 21st century management skills

Surveyed local employers to get more specific. Worked with Higher Ed organizations to create and offer classes. http://www.impact2020.org/workforce.html

Broadband – two goals

  1. All communities of 500 residents or greater meet State goals
  2. USF need to include broadband service

Developed the case for broadband in NW Minnesota. We didn’t want to deploy broadband; not our role. We looked at speeds in 12 counties. At the time counties were only at 24% of desired goal; only 8% of upload speeds. We had 3600 households without access. We sent out 10,000 surveys.

Get more info: http://www.impact2020.org/broadband.html

QUESTIONS

What were some of the actions you saw communities take post discussion on broadband?

It’s been more informal – such as conversations with providers or going after funding.

Part of how Impact 20/20 works is that they are working with high school grad rates – and part of that is using technology to help with homework and for parents to track progress. Also technology is a big part of workforce. So broadband has been the solution – not the issue.

John Stannoch on the original task force spoke about the providers’ commitment to improvement and it seems as if the Impact 20/20 is a great example!

1:00-1:45 – Jack Geller from the UofMN/Crookston

Shifting from Adoption and Utilization and the Rise of Mobile Internet.

Main Themes:

–          In 2012 – it may not be about computers. We need to think about how people access broadband. This will play a role in policy!!

–          Growth in broadband adoption will be organic. The economy or increased access or older folks moving on will be reasons for organic growth.

–          Low income residents may be a crowd that are ripe for intervention – when intervention might spur growth

So what is the most effective use of resources?

–          Helping current users maximize use of broadband may yield greater results.

Price will continue to be a barrier.

Data caps will also be a barrier.

Two main points:

–          Further increases in adoption will be limited as we get closer to the end of the adoption curve

–          Mobile broadband is already too diffused throughout the population for state and federal agencies to ignore; and should be integrated into our strategies to ensure ubiquitous access to broadband

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

If people are using smartphones – do we need to start presenting information in that format?

The U of M is behind the curve – but changes are happening.

How should we be including this?

Having smartphones in rural areas is not enough.

We need the best thinking on where things are going. Maybe we need to talk about 3G not being enough.

Maybe we need to talk to the folks who we feel are disenfranchised and see if they feel disenfranchised.

Maybe we need to look at different type of connections and what is inherent in each (such as looking at latency) and creating a map of what’s available where.

Communities leaping over wired technologies  – are often disadvantaged. They don’t have computers but is that a barrier to getting some tasks done?

1:45-2:00 – Public comments

None

2:00-2:15 – Other business/Upcoming meetings

2:15-2:30 – Drive to Digi-Key

The tour of Digi-Key was really interesting and inspiring. I am hoping to incorporate notes from the tour in a different way so won’t post today.

Next meeting – Tuesday October 16 at the McNally School of Music.

Broadband Progress in Arrowhead: Technology Marketing 101

Posted on by
2

Arrowhead Electric Coop does a great job of keeping folks informed and engaged in their fiber network deployment through their website and through Facebook. It seems as if every Monday I get an update on where the construction crews will be that week and what they are doing.

Here’s the update for this week…

Broadband Construction Crew Locations. 9/10/12 (Monday).
Underground crews: SW & NW sides of Pike Lake, Lutsen Resort, South Shore Devil Track, drops along Caribou Trail, Birch Drive and Pinetree Drive.
Aerial crews: Some crews not working. Aerial drops working alongside Highway 61 between Lutsen & Tofte.

As an addition, this week they are looking for customers to help refocus their branding with a Cooperative Name and Logo Contest. They are looking for a new image that will keep up with their growing mission…

With growth of the Coop. a new name and logo is needed that reflects the Coop. and all of the services we provide our members. We are seeking your ideas as we look to re-name and re-brand your Coop.

Again, it’s fun for me to see the progress from a distance – but I also think it’s wonderful marketing for the area. A great way to let folks who are interested in broadband know what’s happening and with any luck enough updates to even get the message to folks who might not be on the leading edge of wanting upgrades – but who could caught up on the excitement. Getting the broadband range of customers will make a difference to a business plan!

How to Encourage Broadband Adoption: from the provider perspective

Posted on by
Reply

I read a lot of reports on how to encourage broadband adoption. There are three kinds of reports – one focuses on getting folks at the far end of the digital divide to use technology, one focuses on creating super users (think GigU) and the other encourages average users to use more broadband – or faster broadband. No Field of Dreams: Eliminating the Waiting Game and Driving Uptake focuses on the upping the use mainstream users. Well, more specifically, it focuses on how to get those users to upgrade their subscriptions to fiber. Or as they say in the report to get customers to put their money where the providers mouth is.

This report is a little different from some in that it comes from the perspective of the provider. Public or private, it’s the provider that has generally made the big investment in broadband in a given area. So they have the most to gain and lose based on local subscribership – subsequently they are pretty motivated to find self-sustaining, full-paying customers.

The bad news is that customers won’t come clamoring to your door just because you’ve built a network…

Build it and the will come is not only a faulty theory, it goes against the basic laws of technology marketing. Theories developed over the past 50 years have continued to be born out to be true – that technology adoption is slow and sometimes does not come at all unless you make smart, strategic efforts to cross the chasm and drive usage.

But there’s some good news too. Once someone tries fiber, they stick with fiber…

Just as significantly, the level of customer satisfaction among fiber customers is off the charts when compared to the traditional cable, DSL, etc.) Fiber has proven its reliability where other access type did not.

In other words, once you have a customer, you are most likely keeping that customer.

So enquiring minds want to know – how do they do it?

Whether we like it or not, driving adoption of ultra-fast broadband networks is a two-step process:

1. Education – driving understanding of the benefits of ultra-fast broadband, and
2. Close – getting the household, company, organization to actually signup for the service.

Only by creating an understanding of the benefits will you ever get your network to “majority” position as per the Technology Adoption Lifecycle.

They break that down into 4 approaches…

  • The innovation – Better broadband (ultra-fast and more reliable), distinguishing effective utilization from basic Internet usage.
  • Communication channels – One-to-one communication of the benefits of e-solutions and the ultra-fast broadband needed for full utilization.
  • Time – By delivering the ROI that ultra-fast broadband and its e-solutions bring, prospects are faster to adopt so they can realize efficiencies.
    • Knowledge (what are the e-solutions not being utilized that should be)
    • Persuasion (the ROI of adopting ultra-fast broadband and e-solutions)
    • Decision (weighing advantages/disadvantages – what is the cost of not adopting?)
    • Implementation (employing ultra-fast broadband… signing up for your network)
    • Confirmation (utilization of ultra-fast broadband and driving economic benefits)
  • Social system – Leveraging industry leaders’ utilization of ultra-fast broadband and e-solutions to persuade adoption.

In Minnesota – and I am most acutely aware of MIRC initiative efforts – there has been a nice partnership between public and private entities in providing education opportunities to learn more about the benefits or broadband and to provide hands-on training to help local residents and businesses to use the Internet strategically. The report calls these skills e-solutions. An interesting note they make is to differentiate between the e-solutions that are low-bandwidth users (research or having a website for example) with high-bandwidth e-solutions, such as teleworking and creating rich media….

Unfortunately, the “slow to adopt” e-solutions are better served with ultra-fast broadband… so carriers are dealing with two challenges: 1) making the e-solutions relevant; and, 2) driving uptake so that individuals and organizations can realize these benefits.

As the chart below shows adoption rates for various e-solutions.

So for folks who are looking to increase adoption, it seems to make sense to continue with current education efforts to increase use – but from the providers’ perspective it might make sense to start emphasizing the higher bandwidth applications as well.

Twin Cities Getting More, Faster Wireless

Posted on by
Reply

According to the Pioneer Press…

The carrier has begun offering its next-generation data service via technology called Long Term Evolution, or LTE, at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. This means travelers with LTE-ready handsets can see download speeds of up to 20 megabits per second — that is, plenty fast.

What’s more, AT&T is committing to offering LTE service throughout the Twin Cities by roughly Thanksgiving.
They also report that Verizon has been offering these sort of speeds for a while. So AT&T is catching up. It’s good news for folks in the Twin Cities.

It may also be an example of what a little competition can do for the market. To be fair, if Verizon has been offering this for a while this is hardly a reactionary move but it does seem that once one player ups his game, the others follow.

And since it’s on topic, it seems like I ought to mention a free webinar on business apps for smartphones that’s happening today (Friday Sep 7, 2012) at noon. All are welcome. It’s sponsored by MNREM (Minnesota Renewable Energy Marketplace) at part of the MIRC (Minnesota Intelligent Rural Communities) initiative.

 Friday, September 7th:: Noon to 1:00 :: Make Your Smartphone a Business Powertool

Have you been thinking that your phone is smarter than you are? You just need to have the right tools to help you take control and make the most of the potentially powerful tool at your fingertips. Join us for a fast-paced introduction to a number of smartphone applications that will help you conduct business and/or make your life easier through your smartphone. At the end of the webinar we will poll folks about which applications we should feature in depth in future sessions. (Register)

 

Social Media Use and Politics

Posted on by
3

If you’re active on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media sites, you’ve probably noticed there’s an election coming up. Nearly everyone seems to be sharing their political views. According to reports from Pew Internet & American Life at least half of US adults are on social media networks…

Overall, the survey found that 80% of American adults use the internet and 66% of those online adults participate in social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook, LinkedIn, or Google+. That amounts to more than half of the entire U.S. population who are SNS users.

Although most of them report that they aren’t very political on the sites…

The vast majority of SNS users (84%) say they have posted little or nothing related to politics in their recent status updates, comments, and links. Some 63% of SNS users say they posted nothing at all and another 21% say they posted “just a little.” Only 6% of these users say that most or all of what they posted recently on social networking sites is related to politics, issues, or the 2012 campaign. Another 10% say some of what they have recently posted has been about politics.

The survey is from earlier this year – based on my own experience, I feel that statistic might change if they did the same survey now – or any time before the election. That being said, the rest of the statistics on who is using social media tools is are interesting.

It seems that there’s a pretty even split of political parties online…

There were no statistically significant differences among Democrats, Republicans, and independents in their overall use of SNS [social network sites]. All were equally likely at least to be social networking site users.

So you’d think that social networks might be a place where unlike minds can come together to share ideas and information. After all Pew indicates…

  • There is notable disagreement among friends on social networking sites when it comes to politics.
  • 38% of SNS users have discovered through their friends’ postings that their political beliefs were different than they thought they were.

But it turns out that some folks aren’t interested in different opinions..

  • 18% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because the person either posted too much about politics, disagreed with political posts, or bothered friends with political posts. And 16% of SNS users have friended someone whose political posts have appealed to them.

Yet other folks are inspired to political action and/or a change of heart based on social network posts…

  • 25% of SNS users say they have become more active in a political issue after discussing it or reading posts about it on the sites.
  • 16% of SNS users say they have changed their views about a political issue after discussing it or reading posts about it on the sites.

It turns out that some demographics consider the social media sites more important for politics…

  • Democrats who use social networking sites are more likely than others to say that the sites are important.
  • First, SNS-using blacks are significantly more likely than SNS-using whites to feel that the sites are important for these political activities.
  • Second, younger SNS users (those ages 18-29) are more likely than older site users to think the sites are important in this way.
  • Similarly, the social networkers who are very conservative are somewhat more likely to have friends who post a lot about politics on the sites.

So it’s a little bit of a mixed bag in terms of who is going political online and in what ways. TechPresident is a great site for delving deeper into some of the specific ways people are using the Internet towards a political goal.

To tax or not to tax Internet Connections? We asked that in 2000

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC is looking at imposing taxes on broadband connections to pay for broadband connections. Hillcon Valley describes the situation soccinctly…

The Federal Communications Commission is eyeing a proposal to tax broadband Internet service.

The move would funnel money to the Connect America Fund, a subsidy the agency created last year to expand Internet access.

Some folks support the idea; Extreme Tech highlights a few…

Agency officials claim many as 18 million more Americans could gain broadband access over the next decade as a result of the new tax. With 19 million currently without broadband service, that means nearly the entire nation would be covered by high speed access by 2020.

The fee has some high profile supporters. Major technology companies — including AT&T, Sprint, and Google — have already expressed support for the idea. These companies obviously stand to gain from a government subsidy, since they are the ones providing the service.

Some folks, probably most notably S. Derek Turner, are opposed to the idea…

Our policymakers should think carefully before creating a new broadband tax. The big concern is that because consumer demand is more sensitive to price increases on emerging services like broadband than established ones like telephone service, a broadband tax could actually undermine adoption in low-income and senior populations, the very people most likely to be disconnected.

Like the rural electrification efforts during the New Deal, the goals of the USF program are noble; we all benefit when more of our fellow citizens are connected. But the FCC needs to focus on making USF more efficient and accountable before it reaches further into our wallets. At the very least, policymakers need to first study the impact of a broadband tax before foisting it on consumers.

I think it’s helpful to have a little background, starting with a brief explanation from LawBrain of the Internet Tax Freedom Act…

It bars Federal, State and local governments from taxing Internet access as well as such as bandwidth taxes, and email usage. It does not exempt taxes on Internet sales.

Congress has extended the ITFA three times. President Bush signed the “Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendment Acts of 2007,” which extended the Act until Nov. 1, 2014.

The Act also authorized the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, which studied the impact of tax tariff. e report was submitted in 2000, so there is room of admitting that it may be outdated – but I thought the following was worth sharing…

The Commissioners have produced a Report that will guide public policy debate on Internet taxation for at least the next decade. I believe the ideas regarding tax cuts and tax reform reflected in this Report will permit the people of the United States to realize all of the social and economic benefits the Internet has to offer. …

  • Eliminate the three-percent Federal Excise Tax on telecommunications services, an antiquated relic from the 19th century, effecting an immediate tax cut of $5 billion for the American people. Elimination of the regressive tax is an important first step in reducing the expense of Internet access, one of the contributing factors to the digital divide. While this tax once was justified as a luxury tax on the few Americans who owned a telephone, it has no rationale in the Information Economy.
  • Extend the current moratorium on the multiple and discriminatory taxation of the electronic commerce for an additional five years through 2006.
  • Prohibit taxation of digitized goods sold over the Internet. This proposal would protect consumer privacy and the Internet and prevent the slippery slope of taxing all services, entertainment and information in the US economy (both on the Internet and on Main Street across America). Moreover, this tax prohibition is essential to maintaining US global competitiveness since the United States currently dominates the world market in digitized goods.
  • Make permanent the current moratorium on the Internet access taxes, including those access taxes grandfathered under Tax Freedom Act. This proposal is another crucial initiative, targeted to reduce the price of Internet access and to close the digital divide. By Expanding the moratorium to eliminate the current grandfather provision, consumers across the country would participate in electronic commerce without onerous tax burdens.
  • Establish “bright line” nexus standards for American businesses engaged in interstate commerce. The cyber economy has blurred the application of many legal nexus rules. American businesses need clear and uniform tax rules and use tax collection obligations. Failure to adapt “bright line” rules to the New Economy will expose many small and medium sized American businesses to expensive and crippling regulation and/or regulation.
  • Place the burden on states to simplify their own labyrinthine telecommunications tax systems as well as sales and use tax systems to ease burdens on Internet commerce. This effort will be particularly important for small and medium-sized retailers with nexus in two or more states. It also will be important for telecommunications companies as they build out the Internet infrastructure and offer new technologies and services. Radical simplification will be necessary in the New Economy if small and medium-sized businesses are to succeed.
  • Clarify state authority to spend TANF funds to provide needy families access to computers and the Internet, as well as the training they need to participate in the Internet economy. This is one strategy the Commission formally recommends to close the digital divide and make the personal computer and access to the Internet as ubiquitous as the telephone and television.
  • Provide tax incentives and federal matching funds to states to encourage public-private partnerships to provide needy citizens access to computers and the Internet. This is yet another strategy the Commission formally recommends to close the digital divide.
  • Respect and protect consumer privacy in crafting any laws pertaining to online commerce generally and in imposing any tax collection and administration burdens on the Internet specifically.
  • Continue to press for a moratorium on any international tariffs on electronic transmissions over the Internet.

Again, perhaps dated, but I certainly recognize some strategies that have come up again in the National Broadband Plan, Minnesota Broadband Task Force reports and strategies that seem to be working today – such as the computer reuse plans deployed by PCs for People.

To bring us back into the present, the idea of taxing Internet deployment came up at the June Minnesota Broadband Task Force meeting. There was a panel of folks from the State who spoke about policies and broadband deployment. Section 179 of the Revenue Code (which allows certain businesses to expense rather than depreciate costs)came up  as did the idea of not taxing fiber for fiber network deployments; both ideas were offered up as a means to encourage broadband growth. Task Force members noted that the federal rules around depreciation are more generous than state rules – asking why Minnesota wouldn’t look at what the feds offer. The main reason was the Minnesota budget – and I assume budget as a lot to do with what the FCC is considering today. But are we focused on expense today and sacrificing an investment in our future – in this case often an investment in the rural and underserved areas?

Free Press (S Derek Turner) above suggests a study of the impact on the Internet tax. It seems as if the 2000 Report is a model to use or at least a jumping point for looking into the issues.