Click here to follow the Knight Center of Digital Excellence on Twitter.
According to a Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project study, "The Mobile Difference," nearly 40 percent Americans have positive and improving attitudes about their mobile communication devices, thereby further immersing themselves into a more robust digital lifestyle.
Read more
We'll find answers to as many of
your questions as possible and
publish answers in a future issue.
Ask Us
How will broadband affect burgeoning controversies over health care? The answers to this question and more came courtesy of a Broadband Cenus-hosted, hour-long panel discussion. View a video of the discussion.
View Now
President Obama on Innovation and Sustainable Growth. President Barack Obama has new plans to strengthen the economy that will all favor people with hi-tech educations.
View Now
Elevate Miami, a comprehensive Digital Inclusion program launched by the city of Miami, aims to serve youth, low-income families, minorities, seniors and residents facing barriers to digital inclusion.
View Now
The Knight Center of Digital Excellence held its first Stimulus Webcast Session for Knight communities and program directors July 23. Watch it online now.
View Now
By pushing hard on broadband, lawmakers hope to close the "digital divide" that has long separated rural America. In doing so, they hope to give rural consumers access to the same sorts of high-speed services and opportunities - think telemedicine, distance-learning and Web-based commerce - that city dwellers have enjoyed for years.
View Now
|
Archive for October, 2009
Thursday, October 29th, 2009
The Federal Communications Commission’s unanimous vote Oct. 22 to begin developing an open Internet policy served a major victory for those, such as the Knight Center of Digital Excellence, who support the idea that the Internet should be fast, open and accessible to all Americans.
However, as we covered in our net neutrality blog series, which took an in-depth look at each of the FCC’s proposed six net neutrality principles, there are numerous organizations and individuals that are putting some heavy commercial and political pressure on the issue, the FCC and each other.
Major broadband providers feel strongly that the billions of dollars they’ve poured into their networks should provide them the exclusive right to operate those networks however they want. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors – and earn a healthy return on their investments in the process.
Many Republican congressmen have spoken out against the proposed net neutrality principles as well, expressing the opinion that the regulations would likely discourage broadband providers from expanding and upgrading their systems, thereby stifling innovation and hurting the job market.
Sen. John McCain is one prominent politician who holds that view, which is the main reason he introduced the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 the same morning as the FCC vote, which would block the agency from regulating the Internet.
Other congressmen have come forward to say they feel the FCC doesn’t have the legal right to enforce net neutrality rules. Even FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who introduced the proposal, feels there is a legal gray area with regards to enacting and enforcing Internet regulation. He said in a previous interview that his agency is faced with a “dangerous combination of an uncertain legal framework with ongoing as well as emerging challenges to a free and open Internet.”
What’s clear is that while the issue might have been voted on, the debate is far from over. Keep in mind the vote doesn’t put any principle in place as law; it simply states the FCC will start the process for creating regulation to keep the Internet open and use the six principles as a foundation.
Regardless, the vote is a step in the right direction in ensuring all Americans will have access to an Internet that’s fast, open and innovative.
Tags: broadband, Broadband Expansion, digital, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, high-speed, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, Internet Freedom Act of 2009, John McCain, Julius Genachowski, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Net Neutrality, network, Republican party
Posted in Digital news, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | 2 Comments »
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009
Organizations holding their breath in anticipation of hearing whether their first-round broadband stimulus applications were successful might want to take a break – NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling recently said the announcement of broadband bid winners will be delayed by at least “a few more weeks … to get this right.”
Saying he “will not fund a bad application,” Strickling shot down the original agency-imposed award deadline of early November during a Senate Commerce Committee’s Communications Subcommittee oversight hearing on the NTIA/RUS stimulus grant and loan program. RUS administrator Jonathan Adelstein and Mark Goldstein, of the Government Accountability Office, also spoke.
At the Knight Center of Digital Excellence, we feel the delay could be a good move.
A large initial concern was the lack of time states would have to sort through numerous applications, especially given hang-ups in the application process that pushed the due date back. A possible scenario discussed was that states would compensate for the crunch by simply picking their favorite (or most lobbied) programs, or only recommending the state-sponsored applications they knew. There was also the fear that the NTIA and RUS would then take the state recommendations without thorough review since their own volunteer processes weren’t working as smoothly or quickly as originally thought and time was quickly running out on their end as well.
The announcement demonstrates both agencies want their evaluation process to be handled correctly, delayed or not. Again, as Strickling stated, he “will not find a bad application.” To rely on the hurried responses from states, many of which did not have the resources to be as thorough as necessary, may have resulted in funding a number of applications that, in the long run, may not have been the best use of stimulus dollars.
Tags: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act 2009, BIP, broadband, Broadband Expansion, broadband grants, Broadband Initiatives Program, Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, BTOP, Commerce Committee, Communications Subcommittee, Congress, Government Accountability Office, infrastructure, Internet, Jonathan Adelstein, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Larry Strickling, Mark Goldstein, network, NTIA, RUS, Senate, stimulus, stimulus funding request, stimulus watch
Posted in ARRA, NTIA, RUS, Stimulus Package | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009
Here’s a sentence you’ve probably seen in a number of recent Knight Center of Digital Excellence articles: “AT&T has publicly stated that real-time gaming is an ‘aspirational service’ and not a core broadband application.”
The statement has been used multiple times as an example the growing debate between service providers and other industries since Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Sept. 21 net neutrality webcast at the Brookings Institution.
Let’s take a closer look at AT&T’s statement, though. Should real-time gaming be considered an “aspirational service” and not a core broadband application? After all, video games are more or less for kids, right?
Not quite. Growing survey data presented in a 2008 Harvard Business School study on video games and broadband revealed the traditional gamer stereotype of the teenage boy is outdated. Consider these recent Entertainment Software Association numbers:
- The average gamer is 35 years old and has been playing for 12 years.
- Forty percent of all gamers are women. Additionally, “women over 18 years of age” is one of the industry’s fastest growing demographics. Adult women represent a greater portion of the game-playing population (34 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent). In addition, 57 percent of online gamers are male and 43 percent are female.
- Twenty-five percent of gamers are over the age of 50, an increase from 9 percent in 1999. This figure is expected to rise in coming years with nursing homes and senior centers across the nation now incorporating video games into their activities.
- Forty-two percent of homes in America have a video game console.
- Thirty-seven percent of heads of households report they play games on wireless devices such as a cell phone or PDA, up from 20 percent in 2002.
The statistics regarding wireless devices are particularly interesting because the FCC is still considering how issues such as net neutrality will affect wireless Internet. Regardless of what the FCC is thinking now, numbers seem to indicate devices that have a strong gaming component are likely to gain the attention of consumers.
The Harvard Business School study demonstrated that innovative devices, ubiquitous broadband access, improved games and increased reach led to U.S. sales of software, hardware and accessories reaching $18.9 billion in 2007, an almost 40 percent growth over 2006 sales. The Nintendo DS, a handheld broadband gaming device, was the top-selling gaming device in 2007 with 8.5 million units sold. Overall, more than 12 million handheld broadband video game devices were sold that year, in addition to 13 million console units that are capable of real-time online gaming.
The application side of online gaming claims a large audience as well. World of Warcraft, an extremely popular online role-playing video game, claimed 11.5 million monthly subscribers in August 2009. Facebook, the popular social media application with over 130 million subscribers, offers a number of “freemium” video games such as “Farmville” and “Mafia Wars” that not only attract millions of players, but also revolve around social networking. Gamesbrief (a video game industry blog) analyst Nicholas Lovell has claimed that many “freemium” games on Facebook make close to $20 per player on average, as players have the option to pay real money for virtual items that enhance play.
Non-video game device manufacturers are paying attention to these numbers. At a recent media gathering, Apple showed off updates to its line of iPods, pointing out there are more than 21,000 game available on the company’s App store for its iPhone and iPod Touch. In an interview with the New York Times, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said the company’s customers saw the iPod Touch as a strong gaming platform.
Major gaming device companies such as Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have typically written off Apple as a major threat to their industry status. However, that hasn’t stopped those companies from moving in Apple’s arena as well. Both Sony’s PSP Go and Nintendo’s DSi are relatively new efforts by traditional handheld video game manufacturers to add more broadband-heavy functions to devices.
Could AT&T’s statement be pushback rhetoric from a service provider whose infrastructure can’t support gaming? Is AT&T trying to undermine not only competitors but also an entire platform of innovation that millions of Americans take advantage of on a daily basis?
Possibly. But the point is that while AT&T may want to classify real-time gaming as an “aspirational service,” it seems that device manufacturers, online application creators and American consumers are taking a more serious stance.
Tags: Apple, aspirational service, AT&T, bandwidth, broadband, broadband applications, Broadband Expansion, Brookings Institution, cell phone, digital, digital divide, economy, Entertainment Software Association, Facebook, Farmville, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Gamesbrief, Harvard Business School, high-speed, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, iPhone, iPhone Touch, Julius Genachowski, KCoDE, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Mafia Wars, Microsoft, network, New York Times, Nicholas Lovell, Nintendo, Nintendo DS, Nintendo DSi, online gaming, PSP Go, real-time gaming, Sony, Steve Jobs, video games, wireless, wireless devices, World of Warcraft
Posted in Digital news, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
The final piece in a four-part series on the Federal Communication Commission’s six net neutrality principles:
During a recent webcast from the Brookings Institute, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski explained six principles of net neutrality and proposed making them official rules. Let’s take a closer look at proposed rules five and six, which focus on devices and competition.
No. 5: Broadband providers can’t block or demote lawful traffic, or privilege their own content over that of their competitors.
The FCC’s fifth rule touches on a number of examples we’ve discussed in previous parts of this series, such as AT&T’s classifying real-time gaming as an “aspirational [broadband] service,” and Verizon Wireless being taken to task for blocking text messages from a political organization.
A scenario the Knight Center of Digital Excellence proposed in a previous blog is that if the FCC’s net neutrality rules are not enacted: A service provider could favor information from Microsoft over Google by purposely slowing Goggle’s content delivery to create a competitive disadvantage.
Since Genachowski’s webcast, a more critical eye has been turned to service providers that had been trying to find ways to better position themselves for a future Internet stranglehold. Verizon was recently taken to task for its numerous handset exclusivity deals, for example. (It has since responded by publicly stating it would work to reduce these type of deals.)
No. 6: Broadband providers must be transparent about their services.
Both the fifth and sixth principles have recently been added to a list the FCC has been touting for quite some time, but have caused the heaviest debate between various providers. The sixth principle, in particular, has been a major sticking point.
Major broadband providers feel strongly that the billions of dollars they’ve poured into their networks should provide them the exclusive right to operate those networks however they want. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors – and earn a healthy return on their investments in the process.
If all providers are forced to be transparent about their services (as well as follow other rules that limit handset exclusivity, for example), it becomes increasingly difficult to establish a competitive advantage and handicap smaller providers from having equal access to consumers. It could also lead to consumers having complete freedom to choose what device they want to use and what service that device will use to connect. No one, for example, will be forced to choose AT&T as a provider because he or she simply wants an iPhone.
Those are great scenarios for consumers, aren’t they? Imagine: Instead of providers trying to ignore or hide new types of innovative programming, they’ll simply have to develop the infrastructure to support it, right?
Not necessarily. Both broadband providers opposing Genachowski’s proposal and Republicans that sit on the FCC and in Congress have expressed the opinion that network neutrality regulations would likely discourage broadband providers from expanding and upgrading their systems.
How do you view that statement? Are major providers trying to make the point that falling profit margins would simply lead to a lack of research and development dollars? Or is it a threat to essentially hold innovation hostage until they get what they want?
No matter how you view it – or any of the examples we’ve provided throughout this series – the fact remains that there are a lot of complicated issues to sort through – even well after the five-member FCC votes on Genachowski’s net neutrality proposal Thursday, Oct. 22.
For his part, Genachowski commented in a recent interview that as long as cable and telecommunications networks are delivering “high-speed, affordable broadband to all consumers in a given area,” marketplace limitations should be sufficient. However, if they “fall short” in any area or attribute, he said the FCC will propose “alternative and creative solutions” as part of its plan.
Further reading:
• Part one
• Part two
• Part three
Tags: AT&T, bandwidth, Brookings Institution, competition, Congress, digital, economy, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Google, high-speed, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, iPhone, Julius Genachowski, KCoDE, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Microsoft, Net Neutrality, network, Republican party, Verizon
Posted in Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
Ever since Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski’s Sept. 21 net neutrality webcast at the Brookings Institute, an intense debate on the subject has raged between a number of industry executives, policy makers and other concerned parties.
What everyone seems to agree on, however, is the impression the FCC made by publicly stating its stance. Stephen Collins, head of global regulatory affairs for Skype, one of the loudest voices for net neutrality from within the high-tech industry, said, “This puts the FCC at the forefront of global Internet policy. It was a bold statement that could have ripple effects across the globe.”
It’s difficult to imagine what the exact effect would be across the globe if the U.S. were to implement and enforce a robust net neutrality policy. Other nations have different needs, different broadband infrastructures and considerably diverse government models.
A few nations, such as Norway and Japan, have net neutrality rules in place similar to those proposed by Genachowski. Others have dismissed such policies, including several European nations and emerging nations, because telecommunications companies are either controlled by or closely connected to the government. The government plays an even larger role in nations such as China, Iran and Ethiopia, where content and connection speeds are so heavily censored and restricted that there may as well be no Internet service at all.
However, a large number don’t even have a need to consider policies at all because consumers already enjoy both a greater level of competition and more bandwidth than in the U.S.
Those are important categories to consider – competition and infrastructure. When you strip down many of the arguments made for or against FCC-proposed net neutrality rules, those seem to be two concerns that are most prevalent in the overall debate. Read the Knight Center of Digital Excellence’s four-part series on the FCC’s six net neutrality rules for specific examples on how the relative lack of broadband competition and low levels of available bandwidth in our nation are pitting major industry players against each other.
Looking at nations that considered competition and infrastructure issues from the onset adds an interesting facet to the net neutrality debate: Is it a short-term solution to answer for a lack of long-term planning?
Net neutrality is important, and rules governing it should apply to the Internet no matter where or how it’s accessed to ensure American consumers have fast, open and accessible service. At the same time, we hope they don’t detract attention from big-picture problems – the need for more robust competition in broadband markets and the building of higher speed, best-effort infrastructure.
Tags: bandwidth, broadband, Broadband Expansion, Brookings Institution, China, competition, digital, Ethiopia, Europe, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, high-speed, infrastructure, Internet, Iran, Japan, Julius Genachowski, Net Neutrality, network, Norway, Skype, Stephen Collins
Posted in broadband | No Comments »
Friday, October 16th, 2009
When the federal government announced its investment in broadband, the broadband community applauded. Financial assistance would be in place to augment commercial investments in rural areas, provide opportunities for expanded municipal wireless networks and supplement middle-mile fiber builds connecting schools and government buildings.
Buried in the $7.2 billion funding allocation was a relatively miniscule allotment of $250 million for “sustainable broadband adoption,” with $150 million to be dispersed in the first round of funding. Yet, this small Sustainable Broadband Adoption (SBA) pool drew 328 applications totaling nearly $2.5 billion in “asks” - 10 times the amount of funding available. Why so much interest?
It’s simple. Broadband availability without adoption, use and innovative product and service development is like one-hand clapping - not much of a sound and very little real connection. The pool of 328 applications to the SBA fund indicates a huge pent-up demand, a desire to create change and the know-how to promote broadband adoption.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recognized as much in a recent report, saying the “Internet creates value only if applications are adopted by consumers; greater adoption yields greater value.”
The challenge becomes one of holding out a vision that Americans can embrace - one they can see and understand how their individual lives can benefit from broadband. As the FCC has outlined, broadband provides:
- Individuals a platform for education and training, wherever one lives, whatever one’s circumstances;
- Businesses a platform for innovation, greater cost efficiency and access to world markets; and
- Governments a platform that improves efficiency and responsiveness,
One stimulus application designed to connect broadband networks with quality of life in communities is the Connect Your Community (CYC) proposal from the Knight Center of Digital Excellence. The plan is to engage, train, equip and support communities across the county to develop and test training tools, in-depth tracking and analysis. But CYC is just one of the many proposals vying for the tiny pool of SBA funds.
Given the great demand and very limited funding for broadband adoption initiatives, we risk developing broadband networks that may result in under-usage. This is due to many Americans not understanding the benefits of new high-speed, high-capacity communications and how to participate in them fully. Part of the federal government’s job in considering applications is to weigh priorities. We hope this basic first step - of getting Americans up to speed with the what the ramifications of these new high-speed Internet highways can be - will get the attention it deserves.
America applauds the building of broadband networks, because we see the vision of a better life as a result. Our national investment in broadband will take on new relevance and excitement in communities across our nation.
Tags: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act 2009, broadband, broadband availability, Broadband Expansion, Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, community, Connect Your Community, CYC, digital, economy, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, high-speed, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, KCoDE, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Middle Mile, network, stimulus, stimulus watch, sustainable broadband adoption
Posted in Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Stimulus Package, broadband | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 14th, 2009
The third in a four-part series on the Federal Communication Commission’s six net neutrality principles:
During a recent webcast from the Brookings Institute, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski explained six principles of net neutrality and proposed making them official rules. Let’s take a closer look at proposed rules three and four, which focus on devices and competition.
No. 3: As long as they don’t damage the network, consumers can connect any legal devices of their choosing.
If you follow the wide-ranging discussion on devices, you’ll find there’s a lot of overlap. The third principle would seem to relate only to third-party devices like Sling Media’s Slingbox (a TV and video streaming device that is blocked on some 3G networks), but many industry executives involved in the net neutrality debate are also chiming in on what devices are used to connect directly to broadband networks.
We’ve seen the obvious example at work – a cell phone. But when considering the phrase “any legal device of their choosing,” the FCC’s third principle includes any non-phone device that contain Wi-Fi modules, such as Apple’s iPod Touch, Microsoft’s ZuneHD and Blu-Ray players that offer integrated Netflix streaming. Internet radio devices, web-connected home security systems and cameras with integrated wireless connectivity should be considered as well.
With all these devices in play, the net neutrality issue quickly becomes handset exclusivity – a practice where wireless carriers make exclusive deals with device manufacturers. Two examples at work currently include Google’s partnership with Verizon Wireless and Apple’s partnership with AT&T.
Both the FCC and Congress have spent some time looking into wireless handset exclusivity arrangements, especially as it plays into the FCC’s fourth net neutrality principle:
No. 4: Consumers have a right to competition.
The FCC’s fourth principle would ensure customers have the right to competition across the Internet spectrum, not simply in terms of choosing a service provider.
Net neutrality advocates claim there is a necessity to regulate the infrastructure and prohibit private enterprise from implementing methods to alter or promote one entity over another.
A worst-case scenario would be if a service provider would favor information from Microsoft over Google by purposely slowing Goggle’s content delivery to create a competitive disadvantage. Another would be a wireless carrier making enough exclusive deals with equipment manufacturers to effective eliminate smaller competitors and force consumers to choose between device or service.
An Internet stranglehold by a handful of organizations could also limit across-the-board innovation. Consider AT&T’s public statement that real-time gaming is an “aspirational service” and not a core broadband application. It’s an interesting statement, considering a Harvard Business School study on the video game industry demonstrated that innovative devices, ubiquitous broadband access, improved games and increased reach led to U.S. sales of software, hardware and accessories reaching $18.9 billion in 2007, an almost 40 percent growth over 2006. The Nintendo DS, a handheld broadband gaming device, was the top-selling gaming device in 2007 with 8.5 million units sold.
Could this statement be pushback from an infrastructure that can’t support gaming and is trying to undermine not only a competitor, but also an entire platform of innovation that millions of Americans take advantage of on a daily basis?
The rise of various, multi-tasking devices that can provide broadband access and other services has various industry leaders looking for ways to best position themselves as the market begins to take a more concrete shape. The FCC’s net neutrality principles as they relate to devices and competition (and how it eventually chooses to enforce them) will play a major role in that process.
Further reading:
• Part one
• Part two
• Part four
Tags: 3G, Apple, AT&T, Blu-Ray, broadband, Broadband Expansion, Brookings Institution, competition, Congress, digital, economy, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Google, Harvard Business School, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, Internet radio, iPod, Julius Genachowski, Microsoft, Net Neutrality, Netflix, network, Nintendo DS, security system, Sling Media, Slingbox, Verizon, video games, Wi-Fi, ZuneHD
Posted in Digital news, broadband, national broadband plan | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 13th, 2009
During the COMPTEL PLUS Convention and Expo this week, Angela Simpson, advisor to the assistant secretary for National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shared that the NTIA is “on track” to announce the first round of funding in November.
Simpson also shared that 18 applications have moved to the second step of the vetting process and those proposals would concentrate on critical last-mile, remote projects. However, the decisions about who gets funding will ultimately be made by NTIA Administrator Larry Strickling.
Yet, even though NTIA appears almost done with the first round of awards, there’s more work ahead for the agency and the government overall.
NTIA officials must decide whether to hold one or two more sets of broadband stimulus funding. Although Simpson could not confirm how many rounds remain, she said chances are good the NTIA will hold just one more.
If the second and third rounds are merged, it’s likely applicants will have more time to submit proposals, unlike the first round. Simpson did say the process would be streamlined.
“We’re trying to avoid the capacity problems of last time,” she said.
Tags: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act 2009, Angela Simpson, broadband, Broadband Expansion, broadband stimulus funding, COMPTEL PLUS Convention and Expo, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Larry Strickling, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, stimulus, stimulus watch
Posted in ARRA, Digital news, NTIA, Stimulus Package | No Comments »
Monday, October 12th, 2009
The second in a four-part series on the Federal Communication Commission’s six net neutrality principles:
During a recent webcast from the Brookings Institute, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski explained six principles of net neutrality and proposed making them official rules. Let’s take a closer look at the first two, which focus on Web content and applications.
No. 1: Consumers are entitled to access whatever legal content they like.
Once considered a “future-proof” application, the Internet has significantly evolved over the past few years, giving users access to content previously found solely on store shelves or through other outlets. In some instances, service providers have restricted access to this kind of content. For example, AT&T censored a Pearl Jam concert in 2007. A month later, Verizon Wireless was taken to task for blocking text messages from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. (Both companies have since apologized for the censorship.)
Those are just two examples, however. There have been other public incidents that have drawn the ire of organizations such as the Open Internet Coalition, which represents consumers, grassroots organizations and businesses working to keep the Internet fast, open and accessible to all Americans.
So what would happen to the Internet landscape if it weren’t fast, open and accessible? If Internet service providers were allowed to choose among content, businesses would have the ability to slow down or even block their competitors’ Web content. A cable company whose leaders disapprove of a particular political or social cause could block sites supporting that cause.
The FCC’s first principle of net neutrality would ensure those scenarios never happen.
No. 2: Consumers can run whatever legal applications – and use whatever legal services – they like, with some exemptions for law enforcement purposes.
This principle is essentially the same as the first, though it relates to applications.
An example of application “censorship” is Apple’s recent rejection of the iPhone application Google Voice, an Internet-based service that would permit users to make low-cost calls without using AT&T, which has an exclusive arrangement for the iPhone in this country. (Apple said it is still considering the application.)
Net neutrality should apply to the Internet no matter where or how it’s accessed. With the increase in the number of devices that have wireless Internet capabilities, the FCC needs to be vigilant from the beginning when deciding on how to ensure American consumers have fast, open and accessible service.
Further reading:
• Part one
• Part three
• Part four
Tags: Apple, AT&T, Broadband Expansion, digital, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Google Voice, infrastructure, innovation, Internet, iPhone, Julius Genachowski, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, Net Neutrality, network, Open Internet Coalition, Pearl Jam, Verizon
Posted in Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | No Comments »
Monday, October 12th, 2009
The Council on Foundations Fall Conference for Community Foundations in San Antonio brought together hundreds of high-profile Community Foundation representatives for a three-day event (Oct. 5-7) to discuss creating transformative change in our nation’s largest cities to its most rural communities. The Council on Foundations is a national nonprofit association of approximately 2,000 grant-making foundations and corporations that strive to increase the effectiveness, stewardship and accountability of its sector while providing members with services and support necessary for success.
Several Knight Center of Digital Excellence connected community success stories were showcased during the conference. Knight Center Community Program Consultant James Farstad featured the accomplishments of Miami Mayor Manny Diaz and the Miami Dade Broadband Coalition in a presentation about the challenges and opportunities associated with meeting the information needs in large communities. Farstad spoke about Mayor Diaz’s vision for a 21st-century community and how the Knight Center’s unique approach has helped Miami-Dade accelerate efforts to achieve key broadband goals.
Other breakout sessions showcased innovative Knight Center activities in Akron, Ohio, and Milledgeville, Ga. Akron Deputy Mayor David Lieberth demonstrated his city’s commitment to exemplify strategies to meet the information needs of mid-sized cities, and Jim Wolfgang, Director of the Digital Innovation Group at Georgia College, focused on Milledgeville during his discussion on how small cities can uniquely meet their needs.
The importance of access to information and the new role of individuals as information contributors was stressed throughout the conference, with discussions focusing on how new media, libraries and broadband access are crucial to ensuring a consistent, two-way flow of information within a community.
“Informing Communities: Sustaining democracy in the Digital Age,” a report by The Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, was introduced, and provided an outstanding perspective on how “information is as vital to the healthy functioning of communities as clean air, safe streets, good schools and public health.”
According to the report, “America needs ‘informed communities,’ places where the information ecology meets people’s personal and civic information needs. This means people have the news and information they need to take advantage of life’s opportunities for themselves and their families. They need information to participate fully in our system of self-government, to stand up and be heard. Driving this vision are the critical democratic values of openness, inclusion, participation, empowerment, and the common pursuit of truth and the public interest.”
Presenters were able to demonstrate how the Knight Center’s efforts in numerous communities across the nation have provided citizens with the new media and broadband technology necessary to maintain open information streams. Attendees were able to see how the Knight Center is demonstrating its ability to accelerate the creation of connected communities by helping them develop strategies and leverage information technologies to drive civic progress and economic development.
Tags: Akron, broadband, Broadband Expansion, community, Council on Foundations, David Lieberth, digital, digital divide, Digital Innovation Group, Fall Conference for Community Foundations, Florida, Georgia, Georgia College, innovation, Internet, James Farstad, Jim Wolfgang, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, library, Manny Diaz, Miami, Miami Dade Broadband Coalition, Milledgeville, new media, Ohio, rural communities, San Antonio, Texas
Posted in Digital news, Knight Center of Digital Excellence, broadband | No Comments »
|
|
