No surprise that the Twin Cities, with its population density and multiple providers, meets the goal [state's 2015 goal for adequate high-speed Internet access for all households]. But it’s intriguing to see the two large outstate areas in the upper Minnesota River valley and up north.

A big reason is the optic fiber work done in recent years by small rural cooperatives like Farmers Mutual in Madison, Federated Telephone in Morris and Paul Bunyan in Bemidji. Folks in those co-ops will tell you in makes a different when the goal is customer-owner service instead of shareholder profit.

It’s heartening to see coops getting more recognition for their appetite and capacity for helping communities achieve community and statewide broadband goals. It’s a trend that others are picking up as well.

“We gathered good people to formulate these recommendations and action items in order to support innovation in schools and districts,” said State Superintendent Tony Evers. “Schools shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to figuring out how best to use technology. This plan will serve as a roadmap of best practices and maximum impacts.”

Last month, I wrote an article on flipped classrooms in Stillwater and potential issues with assuming all students have adequate access to broadband and technology to participate in a flipped curriculum. (Quick reminder, a flipped classroom instructs students to learn, often via video at home and practice skills in the classroom.) The article spurred a discussion (online, but via Facebook so semi-private) where someone thought access to broadband was probably not an issue in Stillwater. Maybe not – but it is an issue in other areas. I think lifting the discussion to a statewide level rather than community level as Wisconsin has done, helps minimize education gaps. My hope is that it sets a standard that helps raise education goals – but it also requires the schools to consider inequities in broadband access – and helps build the case for ubiquitous coverage.

But to get back to Wisconsin and delve into the specifics, the press release highlighted recommendations…

• Providing students the opportunity to take online and blended courses before graduating from high school
• Exploring methods that allow teachers to maximize their efforts, such as the “flipped classroom”—where the tradition of transferring knowledge via lecture is replaced with a digital homework assignment such as a podcast; meanwhile, students do homework in the classroom, where teachers can engage in improved coaching and assessment
• Invigorating collaborative efforts with businesses and industries
• Allowing students to use their own devices for learning
• Ensuring sufficient and affordable broadband access for schools and students, and equitable access for every household with students
• Developing a statewide, online environment for Wisconsin educators to share and explore quality teaching resources and methods, to avoid redundant curriculum development tasks and to share best practices

The vision is a website it is divided into the following areas:

1. Pedagogy & Instruction – nice shift to teachers as facilitators
2. Curriculum & Assessment – nice focus on collaboration
3. Professional Learning & Leadership
4. Data & Information Systems – nice balance of assessing students and systems, which should mean more strive to improve
5. Policies & Procedures – good connection to workplace
6. Hardware & Infrastructure

I have to pull out just one comment from the Hardware and Infrastructure section because it hits on an issue that I think is important…

The FCC’s “Household Broadband Guide” recommends households with four computers have between 6-15 Mbps, even if just one of those computers is used for an application such as streaming video, video conferencing, or online gaming. “Broadband” is defined as having a minimum of 4 Mbps connection to the Internet.

Finally the site includes a list of action items. I suspect or hope that progress towards achieving those items will be tracked as time goes on. (Given that the vision is less than a week old, it makes sense that nothing is crossed out yet.) The format of the report is easy to follow. It seems as if they had the right people in the room to create a vision that addresses the needs of teachers, administrators, students, families and future employers; it also presents technology as a solution to those needs – not another issue to be addressed.

The vision is built somewhat upon the same structure as the National Broadband Plan – where the required steps will be filled in as the path is followed. Due to many fewer moving pieces, this is a lot easier to grasp than the National Broadband Plan. It would be a nice model for the Minnesota Broadband Task Force’s vision/outline too.

In an interview with USA Today, General Mills Chief Marketing Officer Mark Addicks points out that the cereal box is one of most read items today. On the average three people per household read the box up to twelve times. Now they can be providing more content – to those folks who have smartphones. They are also looking at apps.

Apparently we can expect to start seeing these tech treats later this year. Addicks didn’t want to get in too much details, in case competitors might be reading, but he did offer this…

“You point to a logo and things start to appear,” he says. “Maybe some functional content will pop up on a cake-mix box, or you might see entertainment and games coming from a cereal box. What I’m hoping for is pure entertainment.”

It’s fun but I think it also speaks to the growing ubiquity of smartphones. Brands generally do not shoot for attracting the bleeding edge of customers – they want the critical mass.

The Governor’s Task Force on Broadband today issued a preliminary report that will lay the groundwork for a comprehensive broadband action plan. The Minnesota Broadband Plan Outline issued today will guide the continuing work of the Task Force as it develops specific recommendations for achieving border-to-border broadband access and adoption in all Minnesota communities – urban, rural, and suburban.

Established by executive order, the Governor’s Task Force on Broadband – which represents a diverse balance of broadband interests including consumers, businesses, residential users, educational and health care institutions, traditional telephone and cable companies, wireless providers, and local units of government – has worked collaboratively over the last several months to develop this initial outline. The goal of this document is to provide an initial roadmap that will:

• Move the state aggressively forward in efforts to meet the statutory broadband goals and Governor Dayton’s desire for ubiquitous broadband in Minnesota
• Establish a Task Force work plan and timeline for 2012 and beyond
• Ensure broadband stakeholders and policymakers are aware of how Minnesota is doing in its efforts to meet the state’s broadband goals
• Introduce a set of recommendations that the Task Force believes will help to ensure Minnesota meets our broadband goals and becomes a national leader in developing the economic and social benefits of ubiquitous broadband

Included in the outline is an appendix that establishes a timeline for Task Force deliverables throughout the year, including the creation and submission of an Annual Report to be completed by December 10 of each year for the duration of the Task Force’s work. That Annual Report will consistently provide the state an ability to benchmark Minnesota’s efforts toward achieving our 2015 goals as established by statute.

I hope to take a longer  later - especially at the Appendix, which include a detailed list of ongoing activities and details on upcoming reports. One thing that caught my eye was a desired to keep the Legislators in the loop…

The Task Force will engage Minnesota’s Congressional delegation by providing them with updates on Task Force activity and associated research and reports on the state of broadband in Minnesota.

I hope that will help raise the issue and raise the level of discussion around the state.

The Internet has opened up a world of at-home learning opportunities, but how much should we rely on those when many families still don’t have Internet access?

The author spoke about flipped math classes now offered to fifth graders in Stillwater, MN, where students watch video lessons at home and spend class time working on problems – or what many of us traditionally think of as homework. (Khan Academy is one of the most famous flipped class structures.) I suppose it’s not surprising that I think flipped classrooms are a great idea but it was interesting to read an article that pointed out potential issues with the structure – the first being access to broadband.

Access to broadband – and home computers – is undeniably a big barrier for the flipped classroom. But I’d like to see that as an opportunity to work with families to get them beyond that roadblock to : 1) provide computers and/or lower cost broadband access in a perfect world or 2) provide after-school access to the technology in the school as a Plan B. Otherwise I think we’re playing to the lowest technology common denominator rather than trying to raise the bar for everyone. That not only cheats the students, it seems like a bad investment in our community.

Ironically, Stillwater’s Flipped Classroom website describes the move towards flipped learning as a move away from targeting the lower common denominator…

A traditional teaching technique for math is one where the primary purpose of the classroom time is for the teacher to present content. Generally, the pacing of the content targets the average or slower learner.

I’m excited to see that Stillwater has chosen the road less taken to raise the potential for all of their fifth graders.

The author asks a second question that doesn’t directly involve technology as much as I think touch upon a byproduct technology has brought to modern life…

When society is already wringing its hands about how much homework is appropriate, what would it mean to place so much of the burden of learning on the home?

I don’t know if more time is spent working on “homework” in the flipped model versus the traditional model. I do know that last night’s homework for my oldest kid involved her saying – “quiz me on cells”. If you have a middle schooler, you know that general knowledge does not help much. They need their quiz answers to match the reading exactly. Even the younger kid’s homework started with “you know Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day”. Frankly, I feel I could pass an essay test on Alexander – but not a pop quiz.

So I can tell you that as a parent, I think watching the video with the student would save my time. I feel like it would save their time too – because we wouldn’t be barking up wrong trees and we wouldn’t be making drives back to school for the text-book because “Google answers aren’t allowed”. And I feel like it would be preparing my kids for tools that are being used in the workplace today. Think about it – when is the last time you watched a video to learn something; now when it the last time you picked up a reference book. (As I librarian I type that with some sadness, but I type it.) Part of the benefit of the flipped classroom is preparing kids for technology of this century, not last century.

The other point the author raises is that school shouldn’t bleed into the whole day…

But students also have lives outside of school. They play sports. They participate in church groups. They join clubs.

In some ways I think that’s the most compelling argument – but I think where you land on that issue probably aligns with how you feel about the workday bleeding into the whole day. In this case, yes technology does potentially make for more hours of work for a kid – but just as with an increasing number of work schedules, perhaps that hours could become more flexible. So perhaps I find this criticism most compelling because it highlights the fact that so many opportunities present themselves in education when we use technology that it challenges us to reevaluate traditional teaching methods. That’s exciting and scary – but again I think to not challenge the “regular” way will leave our children unprepared for the new century.

By the end of January, about 300 Lakefield residents will enjoy a range telecommunication services powered by fiber-optic cables.

And here’s the tidbit that caught my eye this morning…

Personalized higher speed Internet up to 1000 Mbps is available to customers upon request.

I love my house and my neighborhood – but 1000 Mbps could have me checking out open houses!

In Rochester, the Rochester Police department will use advanced analytics software from IBM to mine, share and extract intelligence from critical data in order to improve police investigative and prevention programs. Law enforcement will then be able to identify local “hot spots,” and allocate resources in advance.

The application, IBM InfoSphere Identity Insight, provides users with specific data from existing law enforcement and public safety databases to aid in investigations and prevention. “The technology will allow law enforcement officials to see broad patterns about activity in their city and focus on prevention,” Cleverley explains.

Saint Paul, Minnesota nonprofit organization PCs for People is leading a mobile computer refurbishing project funded by the Blandin Foundation, Otto Bremer Foundation and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The project seeks to reduce electronic waste while simultaneously helping bridge the digital divide in greater Minnesota.

“We have created a mobile unit to travel to cities across the State of Minnesota, refurbish donated computers on-site and give them right back to families in the local community”, said Casey Sorensen Executive Director of PCs for People. “We are very excited about the project, last month we gave 113 computers to families in Duluth and saw overwhelming demand. Families were extremely grateful since over 80% were receiving their first home computer!” noted Casey. Over the next 7 months PCs for People will travel to 10 communities to replicate the successful Duluth event:

1. Alexandria
2. Bemidji
3. Crookston
4. Fairmont
5. Austin
6. Marshall
7. Hutchinson/Litchfield
8. Faribault/Rice County
9. Cambridge
10. Hibbing

The project will focus on getting computers to two demographics that generally do not own home PCs; low income families and senior citizens. Recipients are identified through partnerships with local community organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Head Start programs and Senior Centers. To be eligible for a computer each recipient attends a basic computer training session and they must be below the 150% poverty level.

Two critical components to making sure the computer is useful are an internet connection and ongoing technical support. Each computer comes with free support from a local computer repair shop and self-paced basic computer skills training. For internet, recently ISPs such as Comcast and CentruyLink have created $10 a month high speed internet programs exclusively for low income households. Sorensen said, “Families that receive a computer through our organization have never had the opportunity to search for jobs or use search engines from their homes. It is a big deal for them.” With an average income under $12,000 per year recipient families generally can’t afford $50-60 a month for internet. Sorensen mentioned, “In most cases families want a computer for the Internet and for school work. Even though they can’t afford the most expensive service we have found they are able to prioritize a $10-20 internet bill.”

According to Michael Graif, project lead for PCs for People’s Mobile Refurbishing, finding people in need of a computer is the easy part. “What we need now to make sure these events are successful is to find local businesses willing to donate their old computers.” Prior to arrival in each city, PCs for People will reach out to local businesses to source at least 100 computers. “This is a win-win for businesses needing to manage their end-of-lifecycle digital assets in a cost-effective way, and for the community,” said Michael Graif. “Not only are we offering businesses valuable data wiping and hardware recycling services for free, but it’s an opportunity to help their local community.”

Businesses looking to participate in the program and donate their equipment should contact Michael Graif at: mgraif@pcsforpeople.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or by calling (651) 243-0093.

PCs for People, a non-profit organization dedicated to collecting and refurbishing used computers for distribution to those who lack this essential communication and education tool. Since 1998, the organization has distributed refurbished computers to over 10,000 Minnesota families.

Most of the time the group was focused on looking at a draft report that had been created by staff based on notes from the last meeting. The plan is to use these notes to create a final version of the report – and from the report they will create a spreadsheet of tasks to help guide their progress throughout the year. It sounds very similar to how the National Broadband Plan was rolled out.

To help track the discussion, in bold I have abbreviated the high level goal being discussed. These aren’t the official notes so I didn’t want to retype the whole document – but did want to provide enough context for the discussion to make sense – even if you weren’t there.

Read on for the full notes…

I. Greetings and Introductions 10:00 – 10:10

Audience: Dennis Fazio, Dave Frankel, Tim Johnson, Heather Rand, Ann Treacy , Brent Christiansen , Ann Higgins. Mike Martin, Tony Mendoza.

II. Approval of January 10, 2012 Minutes 10:10 – 10:20

done

III. Public Comments 10:20 – 10:30

none

IV. Discuss and Finalize Broadband Plan Outline 10:30 – 11:45

Goal is to go through document to turn in at end of month.

Any high level concerns:

• The goals we have set are note achievable without taking steps. We need to recognize that these significant actions must take place if we need to meet our goals in the next few years.
• Yes, let’s emphasize the sense of urgency.

Specific notes – these notes got very specific – so I’m going to try to provide context from the draft reports (highlights anyways) followed by discussion on those items.

1. Pursue collaborative strategies to expand broadband use through advanced applications

• The Commissioner asks that the Task Force try to have a plan in place by Dec 2012 – and that in the future, the reports will reflect back on these notes. The notes will be an action plan.
• Let’s make sure that infrastructure is mentioned earlier in the report. It is the call in the executive order. Also makes sense organizationally.
• Let’s consider using more active verbs – forget about exploring, instead use promote.
• How many dates do we want to specify in the report?

1. There are 4-5 spaces where we can add space. We’ll at least need to prioritize those dates.
2. We might not need to include a timeline – but it might be helpful internally.
3. Actually, let’s include a timeline in the appendix and remove the dates in the document.

Create & maintain an up-to-date public-facing information dashboard describing progress towards reaching the state ubiquitous goals

• Who is currently tracking progress towards goals?

1. ConnectMN is currently tracking some resource. Although ConnectMN is not tracking success stories or including info such as conferences.
2. Are we trying to target the consumer?
3. Consumers, policymakers, anyone…
4. Who is our target audience? We could better define that? Well we don’t want to limit the definition.
5. One of our charges is to gather best practices.
6. We also need to step back to see which of these makes sense –and where we might use our resources best.
7. We need to discuss this next time and be honest about how much time we can spend pursuing some of these things. We can draw from DEED for help too. We could also look outside of government for help.

• Shouldn’t we try to find places where we have one provider too – not just unserved and underserved areas?

1. We find in the communities having one provider can also be an indicator of underserved areas.

Dig once – coordinate infrastructure construction projects with broadband projects

• We made some changes. Do we want to single out Dakota County at this point? It’s nice to know there are leaders – but maybe we want to be more general.
• Also do we want to propose legislation?
  • Might want to add date here.
  • How about Jan 2013.

Evaluate and determine the funding resources necessary in order to reach the broadband goals and methods for funding.

• Maybe we want to say identify instead of determine. Maybe add suggest.
• Maybe we can create a bundle/packet of info.
• We might broaden that to include options other than tax incentives.
• In fact we might broaden the suggestion even more – otherwise it does seem like we’re focused on 3-4 specific suggestions.
• Can we talk to someone in Revenue to get specifics?
• Maybe we can get into specifics later.

Promote current broadband mobilization efforts and fund ways to incent formal community planning.

• Why are we focusing on counties? Shouldn’t we include everyone at the community level?
• Focusing efforts does give us a finite group to survey.
• We might consider using land use management structure. It gives us a ready-made structure.
  • How would that work in practice? Could we survey folks based on that structure?
  • We’d need to check on that.
  • Let’s note that we need better language.
  • We refer to support – who will support?
    • We were thinking moral support.
    • So maybe we go with encouragement.
    • But everything we suggest is not necessarily going to be done by the Task Force or the State – we want to coordinate efforts and tap into a wide range of resources.
    • The state has been supportive – but not financially. Maybe we want to say promote.

Examine best practices

• Let’s review legislation as well.

Focus on adoption issues

• Does the Task Force want to evaluate programs?
• We want to collect and share more than evaluate.
• Maybe the Task Force can shift from “taking steps” to “identifying steps”
• Maybe we want to get presentations on adoption and can we catalog that info?
• Next meeting we will talk about how to turn this outline into a spreadsheet that will track out success.
• Will one of our tasks for next meeting will be to create working groups. Would be nice to have a draft before the meeting.

Survey, research, data: (ongoing surveys of how MN is doing)

• This feels like a lot more doing that we are able to do. Maybe we need to focus on finding the folks to gather and collect data – rather than collecting and gathering ourselves
• ConenctMN already does this.
• Maybe we need to be clearer about what we are doing, as opposed to what we will be getting from others.
• Do we want to explore satisfaction measure rather than specific speed goals? As folks who measure – we all want to see the numbers but maybe the end users should be able to speak about whether their speeds meet their needs.
  • Maybe this is worth exploring – maybe there’s a partner to help.
  • A satisfaction measure is a nice addition – but not a good replacement. When we’re building infrastructure – we need to know where we’re going. We want to build on future need – not today’s need. (Just as we do with bridges.)
  • Yes – those in this game for a while have been professing the need to look at the future.
  • Realistically broadband systems last 3 years – so it’s tough to budget in a way that bridges can last for 15 years.
  • It is nice to look for trends in satisfaction.
  • But our goal is to look at speed, availability & adoption. How doe s this fit in?
  • This does fit into availability and speeds. It’s an idea that’s not totally fleshed out – but it worth considering.

V. LUNCH

VI. Discuss and Finalize Broadband Plan Outline (cont.) 12:30 – 1:30

Coordinate across government

• No comments

Evaluate the impact of FCC actions

• Is the intention to track FCC actions related to CAF?
• Broader than that – but specifically the recent FCC orders. This would be done primarily by the department – that is evaluating and reporting on what’s happening.
• The Greater MN Telehealth Initiative (ongoing for 4 years) will be participating for 3 more years and it will bring $5.4 million in reduced rates. (It’s a pilot project.) There’s another project happening in the NW corner and North Dakota. It would be nice to track what’s happening.
• Will we have the capacity? Maybe we want to include data but not collect ourselves.
• This does seem like this is the first step in doing our homework. So it’s a good piece to leave it. It’s very helpful in planning.
• Tracking the impact would be good – maybe evaluating is too strong. Maybe we need to monitor and understand.
• What’s the CAF program?
  • Connect America Fund – transition from USF to CAF
  • Isn’t anyone tracking that already?
    • The info is so new that no one knows what it will involve.
    • Maybe we want to find someone who might already been doing this (or open to doing this) and tap them?

Establish an ongoing mechanism within state government for high-speed broadband focused efforts.

• Let’s include the support required. So that we don’t have an unfunded mandate. (Not thinking money necessarily but staff support.)

Conclusion – Includes Schemata created by 2009 Broadband Task Force in their report.

• DO we plan to add amendments to this plan?
• Or maybe this is an outline from which we’ll create a plan.
• This can give the larger context in terms of road mapping – but maybe it will work better as an executive summary.

Can we get the next version of this draft by Friday noon? Then folks can look over and approve it.

VIII. Getting Info Out to Members-What and How 1:40 – 1:55 

How are things going?

• The members seem to get info well now.
• This meeting was exactly what was expected.

What’s the plan for the future?

• For the next meeting we’ll need good ideas for work groups.
• We’ll want to think of where we might want to travel.
  • Bernadine said she’d help get folks out in the communities.
  • We’ll turn the report into a spreadsheet for operations
  • Next meeting is a working planning meeting.
  • Next meeting: Feb 14 – Bloomington
    • Need capacity for conference call

VII. Additional Public Comments 1:30 – 1:40

Dave Frenkel (from satellite) – satellite is booming – especially since government is getting out of the business. Why isn’t it mentioned?

• The satellite association has offered to talk to us – and we’ll have them in.
• I think our plan is technology neutral
  • Yes, not it alludes to wired (with Dig once) but doesn’t talk about dish reimbursement.
  • Also no representation from industry
    • This isn’t a self-elected group
    • And Dan is from wireless, Bob is from wireless, no one from Satellite.
    • It’s important to meet with all folks from industry if we want to meet the statewide goals.

Heather Rand – with start of legislation, we may see broadband access come up. Do you intend to delve into those issues?

• From the plan outline, I think we look forward to ideas we might put together, but might not be in the position to evaluate legislation for this year. In fact it might not be within our scope even in later years.
• It would be nice to track legislation through this group.

IX. Other Business/Next Meeting Agenda 1:55 – 2:00

Adjourn Early (12:45)

We were talking (emailing) a little but about how those articles were connected. I think both speak to a great schism in economic development strategies.

Information Channels as Economic Development Tools

The first article talks about the shift from an economy based on dollar value vs an economy based on knowledge. Specifically the article looks at Twitter. It’s difficult to monetize the value of Twitter and Tweets – because the value isn’t in the technology; the article claims that the value is in the database of information that’s being collected.

Tweets are unique bits of information in that their lifespan is brief. So even the value of the information is sort of misstating the value. (Although I’m sure there is value to be gleaned from looking back at Twitter trends.) The real value lies in that stream of information – and immediate access to users. The value will be reaped by those who listen, act or react to the information.

So we’re seeing a change in the value chain. Value shifts from that which we can monetize today, to information – and I’d claim to information channels. Folks who have access to technology and broadband have access to those channels. Others do not and will therefore be at a disadvantage – regardless of what else they do. (You can get the information – but that’s yesterday’s coin of the realm – today you need to have access to the source.)

A great underpinning in this shift is that money loses its value once it’s spent. If I have a dollar, I can keep it or give it to you. We can’t both have it. With information, we can both have it. And I think folks who learn to retain the value while sharing have the greatest opportunity to succeed in today’s economy.

The Recipe for Success Has Changed

The second article dispels the myth of the “rural brain drain” by telling two stories. First the story of the smart rural people who never left. Second by telling the story of the people who left for the promise of something bigger beyond, who are not finding that the rules have changed. Young people are leaving school and there are not enough jobs to fill. Families are finding that the security and homes they built are slipping away with economic uncertainty. These people are looking for new opportunities for success and rural areas are part of the equation. (I would defer to Ben Winchester’s research on the “Brain Gain” to back up this point.)

The author of this article makes the point that rural communities saw the economic uncertainty before other areas – and one positive reaction has been the birth of the New Farmers – fueled by, “first, an increasing consumer preference for locally grown and organic food and second, the economic downturn and increased unemployment.”

While this article doesn’t mention technology, I read with technology-colored glasses, and I remember speaking with a “New Farmer” about her use of broadband. It was an essential utility for her. There were many things she was able to give up to start her new rural life, but broadband was not one of them.

Also I think that success in rural and urban areas requires a connection between the two worlds. There is a report from Minnesota Rural Partners that quantifies the economic connection between rural and urban Minnesota – but even more directly I think that broadband removes the barrier of geographic distance that in the past has also kept an economic distance between rural and urban. I think rural communities felt this first and not in a positive way. Consider local bookshops closing once Amazon emerged. But I think that local entrepreneurs are realizing that broadband goes both ways. Or at least those who have access to broadband are able to realize that it’s a two-way street, which brings us back to the original article. Broadband opens a new channel for commerce – but it also opens the door to accessing the information channels.