In Defense of Including Digital Divide Issues in Evanston’s Google Bid
Mary Alice Ball
Jordan Zoot advocates dropping the section on digital divide from Evanston’s proposal. I would like to speak in defense of retaining it. Why? Aside from my strong personal views about equitable access, I say this because Google thinks it is an important issue and so it will help us to be selected. I base this claim from reading the reply comments of Google Inc. to the FCC in the matter of A National Broadband Plan For Our Future (GN Docket No. 90-51), dated July 21, 2009. Page references below are to this document.
Google is a young, somewhat idealistic, definitely impatient company (I agree with John Zbesko and others that its values are a mixed bag). Its goal is to develop innovative online services, applications and content. The more people who use these services, the more advertising revenue Google can generate. If Google is to broaden its reach to the public it needs to loosen the dominance of the telcos, referred to by Google as “platform owners.” Google doesn’t trust the broadband mapping data supplied by the telcos and recommends that the FCC create one that should “expressly include hard-to-reach populations (for example, low-income areas and the elderly, disabled, and minority populations)” (p. 10).
It sees the benefits to the public from a “plethora of two-way, interactive online applications and services for education, health care, disabilities access, energy efficiency, productivity, public safety, access to government, and more” (p. 14). It supports this, in part, by citing from a filing from the New America Foundation that calls for deployment of “high capacity fiber into every community with points-of-presence at community anchor institutions…” (p. 15).
Google proposed in this document that the FCC set up “several U.S. communities as test beds for installing a minimum of 1 Gbps fiber connections to every residential household” (p. 39). It proposed this because it believes the telcos have a strangehold on broadband that is detrimental to innovation and our national interest. “Rather, the platform owner can be expected to manage its network in its private economic interests, which can be at odds with the public values of consumer choice, growth of unaffiliated applications, services, and content, and ‘innovation with permission’” (p. 36).
Among some of the other suggestions (some are endorsing other organizations’ proposals) Google makes to the FCC are: 1) deployment of fiber to “libraries, public housing, community medical facilities and K-12 schools, and for municipal broadband deployment;” 2) “set even higher benchmarks of, for instance, 100 Mbps to all public libraries by the year 2012;” 3) “a broadband adoption project for low-income students and their families;” 4) “digital literacy programs;” 5) “accessible user interfaces for disabled persons;” 6) “a broadband adoption program for people of color;” and 6) “energy efficiency through smart grids and smart buildings” (pp. 40-42).
Google’s comments clearly indicate a desire to address the problems around the digital divide. IMHO, we would be shortsighted to neglect these issues in our proposal.
Mary Alice
Neal Daringer
Jordan S. Zoot, CPA.CITP.CISM.CGEIT
stunned. The clear purpose in undertaking the RFI is the intention to
influence the resolution of issues currently under consideration by
the FCC. Google has product which needs a pipeline. Since they don't
own a pipeline they don't share in peering arrangements and have to
pay for freight. The effort is to force Verizon and Comcast to up
their game or have a new competitor. There may be some benefit from
these arrangements to local communities in getting fiber in place
sooner. However, the clearly stated intention is to provide for a
service "at a competitive price". It doesn't say anything about Google
not earning a profit, or that the price would be even a nickel cheaper
than current market offerings.
The RFi itself doesn't request any information with regard to the
"digital divide" issue, nor does elicit comments on the subject. As
such, the fact that a person or a community has a strong opinion on a
subject, be it digital divide, or requiring everyone to paint their
house the same color is of not relevant to the request which was made.
While the goal of providing uniform access to broadband to everyone
may be desirable, its clear, just as we have seen with healthcare
reform that there are differing views on the subject. I reiterate my
belief that the issue should be addressed in the proper forum, NOT
adding it to the RFI which creates "noise" or a distraction from the
solution to the question which was asked.
The potential is here to submit a RFI response that will won't go
anywhere due to the misguided desire to infuse socialist goals into
its content. If that happens and Evanston isn't selected, then the
advocates of digital divide related issues will lose out on even
having a seat at the table to discuss actual implementation.
On Mar 12, 7:56 am, Neal Daringer <ad...@c0wzftp.com> wrote:
> I believe the reason for all of these comments is because the incumbents
> don't see any prospective ROI on putting in new equipment into these "under
> served" areas. They fail to mention that they charge an arm and a leg for
> their top tiers of service which is why the folks in these areas won't buy
> them. At least that's why I don't buy them. It is all relevant. Not that it
> is important, but comcasts top tier is $99.95/month (+tv service).
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Mary Alice Ball
> <maryaliceb...@yahoo.com>wrote:
John Zbesko
text searching/analyzing algorithm for sifting through all the RFI's it
will receive. While the RFI itself may not mention the "digital divide",
it certainly is a "buzz" word that I'm sure will be indexed. Mary Alice
makes a good case for including the term, IN ADDITION to all the other
information that will be possibly more crucial to Evanston's application.
As I mentioned in an earlier email, I firmly believe politics should be
kept out of our discussions and our RFI. Calling our efforts to bring fast
internet access to all the people of Evanston a "misguided desire to
infuse socialist goals" does not help.
John Zbesko
David N. Mann
"The clear purpose in undertaking the RFI is the intention to
influence the resolution of issues currently under consideration by
the FCC."
I don't believe this is "clear" at all, and I think the use of the phrase is a poor rhetorical trick.
"At a competitive price" is vague and it could be interpreted to mean "at a price equal to existing prices for similar service." However, I don't think Google enters any business without the intent to significantly change the existing practices and conditions in that business. Consequently "competitive price" could reasonably be interpreted to mean "at a price significantly less than existing prices for similar service." We don't know what they mean, and there is simply no comparable product offering available, so the point can't be meaningfully debated.
I think that Mary Alice's citations of Google's stated position are a powerful argument in her favor. It makes sense to take Google's words at face value rather than try to project their intentions through a laissez-faire capitalist lens.
Dave Mann
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan S. Zoot, CPA.CITP.CISM.CGEIT, you are a man of many certifications, and you are impeccably dressed.
CPA -- Certified Public Accountant -- http://www.aicpa.org/
CITP -- Certified Information Technology Professional -- http://infotech.aicpa.org/Memberships/Overview+of+The+Certified+Information+Technology+Professional+Credential.htm
CISM -- Certified Information Security Manager -- http://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=CISM_Certification&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=16&ContentID=7513
CGEIT -- Certified in the Governance of Enterprise IT -- http://www.isaca.org/Template.cfm?Section=CGEIT_Certification&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=16&ContentID=36126
All of which is to say that you know how much it will cost to bung up a USB port with super-glue.
STFU
Neal Elward
John Zbesko
able to effectively search for a TV program and click on it to watch. The
connection to broadband internet is clear- and the competitive threat to
Comcast and AT&T as well.
Perhaps this possibility is one that can be used to generate enthusiasm
among Evanstonians who ask what do we need faster internet for? Maybe our
RFI needs to mention current TV offerings in Evanston, as well as internet
services?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Is-Google-TV-the-Wave-of-the-Future-2773
Jordan S. Zoot, CPA.CITP.CISM.CGEIT
phrase is a poor rhetorical"
Well....then perhaps the following would be of interest:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/62953-google-s-already-won-the-fcc-auction
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/10/google_ceo_to_fcc_chair_thanks.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/10/the-federal-communications-com.html
http://www.multichannel.com/article/449177-Behind_Google_s_Broadband_Strategy.php
I didn't invent any of the above but, I do believe that the logic is
compelling. I reiterate my point regarding other vehicles for
addressing digital divide issues. I will acknowledge that the notion
of incorporating "buzz words" in a document has significant merit if
there will truly be a machine based screening of the applications.
I would also query whether everyone is entitled to their own opinions
in a forum of this type. The use of STFU directed at a specific person
is so over the top in terms of abuse policies that the writer ought be
permanently removed from the group.