On CETF "Get Connected!"
2011-06-30 06:38:36.972736+00 by
Dan Lyke
5 comments
Tonight's Petaluma Technology Advisory Committee meeeting (Yay, we dropped the "& Telecommunications"!) addressed signing the city on to the California Emerging Technology Fund "Get Connected!" campaign.
Here's what I wrote to a fellow committee member. If you are a fellow TAC member (other than the one I emailed this to), please do not comment on this post or discuss this topic with me before the next TAC meeting to avoid potential Brown Act issues!
So I'm still skeptical about what Petaluma gets out of pushing the "Get
Connected!" campaign. There's some nebulous stuff about federal
dollars, though I'm not sure why the CETF would need that when they've
got those tens of millions of telecom dollars, but anyway...
...continued in comments...
[ related topics:
Interactive Drama California Culture
]
comments in descending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2011-06-30 20:35:42.958528+00 by:
Dan Lyke
[edit history]
Larry, I think there's a budget and core competence issue there.
More notes: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/16...-little-interest-among-non-users
By a 53%-to-41% margin, Americans say they do not believe that the spread of affordable broadband should be a major government priority. Contrary to what some might suspect, non-internet users are less likely than current users to say the government should place a high priority on the spread of high-speed connections.
#Comment Re: made: 2011-06-30 20:32:30.463631+00 by:
Larry Burton
Maybe if government sites were designed to draw people to them....
#Comment Re: made: 2011-06-30 20:17:17.067511+00 by:
Dan Lyke
Public Policy Institute of California questions the wisdom of pushing
broadband adoption:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cep/ep_707jkep.pdf
... Average online book prices are no lower than in traditional
bookstores, and online sellers exhibit significant dispersion
associated with differentiated strategies (see Clay et al., 2002).
Job searchers who use the Internet do not have shorter unemployment
durations than searchers who do not (see Kuhn and Skuterud, 2004).
A companion study (Kolko, 2007) looks at how broadband adoption
changes online behaviors—it has a positive and significant effect on
downloading music, purchasing, visiting adult sites, and researching
medications and medical conditions. Adopting broadband has no
statistically significant effect, however, on visiting job or
government sites—two of the many goals that governments regularly
hope for when considering municipal wireless initiatives.
#Comment Re: made: 2011-06-30 19:53:26.748816+00 by:
Dan Lyke
[edit history]
Additional broadband statistics: If I'm reading this right, 99.5% of
Petalumans have access to wired broadband, 100% have access to
Download > 0.768 Mbps, Upload > 0.2 Mbps.
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/su...alifornia/census-places/petaluma
Still no number on actual adoption. (Ramblings of an old man: When I
started an ISP, we paid over $3k/month for .128Mbps, in a place where
$300 was a mortgage payment.)
As mentioned in the previous message, I think it's also important to
quantify what staff time "all departments and agencies" reviewing
"scopes of responsibilities, work plans, and services" the actions
to "promote deployment and adoption of broadband" would cost. Tim, do
you feel comfortable giving a 30 second estimate on how many person
days that'd be for your department?
#Comment Re: made: 2011-06-30 06:38:48.427573+00 by:
Dan Lyke
Here's a bit of a drill down into their sample resolution, including
some "WHEREAS" claims which I think need clarification, and some "BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED"s that commit staff time(!), may cause other
budgetary issues(!), and the last paragraph may need a lawyer hour or
so.
And we're past their target 2009 and 2010 target years "to Get
Connected!".
If we look at the sample resolution, the first clause is:
WHEREAS, closing the Digital Divide is vital to the economic
prosperity and quality of life for residents in [Name of Local
Government] and throughout California.
I think there's still some skepticism over the "Digital Divide". As I
mentioned,
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report...and_Adoption_Report_11082010.pdf
suggests that 47.2% say "Don't need it - not interested" and 22.3% say
"No computer or computer inadequate", only 18.6 say "Too expensive". If
people don't have computers they're not likely to be using broadband
usefully (and may just have a smart phone).
I also grew up outside the mainstream, in a community that eschewed
lots of technology for many uses, so I come with a built-in bias
that technology isn't necessary for learning.
I can get picky on some of these, but the fourth paragraph says:
WHEREAS, [Name of Local Government] acknowledges that 38% of all
Californians, 40% of low-income households, and [percentage of
residents in local jurisdiction or region] are not connected to the
Internet with broadband, leaving more than 14 million Californians
without high-speed Internet access at home.
I don't know where they're getting the 38% and 40%, seems like we need
to source that, we *definitely* need to source the "[percentage of
residents in local jurisdiction or region]". The U.S. Census may have
data we can use for this, I can dig further.
Running down further:
WHEREAS, [Name of Local Government] is committed to helping students
obtain the highest-quality education possible incorporating digital
literacy and understands that high-speed Internet connectivity and
the availability of computing devices both at school and at home are
critical teaching and learning tools for academic achievement.
As mentioned previously: I'm not convinced. I either want studies which
demonstrate a curriculum need, or we pull that paragraph.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the [Name of Local Government] [Board of
Supervisors or City Council] requests all of their departments and
agencies to review scopes of responsibilities, work plans, and
services to identify and report back to the [Board of Supervisors or
City Council] within six (6) months on the strategic actions that
will remove barriers to and promote the deployment and adoption of
broadband among residents, customers, and recipients of public
services.
That looks like it's asking for staff time. Likewise:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the [Name of Local Government] [Board of
Supervisors or City Council] directs that appropriate policies
promoting and supporting the deployment and adoption of broadband be
promulgated and incorporated into the General Plan and other
appropriate land use and economic development plans.
And
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the [Name of Local Government] [Board of
Supervisors or City Council] authorize the use of their names as
champions of Get Connected! on the websites of the California
Emerging Technology Fund (www.CETFund.org and
www.GetConnectedToday.com) and in printed materials pertaining to
Get Connected!
Based on what I saw on GetConnectedToday.com, *I* am unwilling to sign
on as a public supporter because I am unwilling to spend my social
capital and public reputation on an affiliation with them. And to
put this in context, there are naked pictures of me on the Internet. I
don't see what Petaluma gets out of this. It seems like it says "we're
bandwagon joiners", not "we understand technology and its uses".
And if the TAC is going to be taken seriously, I think we need to
provide justifications on all of these counts and a well written
resolution to support this.
Seems like if AT&T and Verizon were serious about making sure that
people "Get Connected!" they'd at least be price competitive with
Sonic.net...