Andy Carvin's Waste of Bandwidth

July 13, 2007

Intel, OLPC Come to an Accord

The Associated Press is now reporting that Intel and MIT's One Laptop Per Child initiative have reached an accord. The two entities have been bashing each other in the press for some time now, dissing each other's technology like an east coast-west coast rap war. Now, the AP says that Intel will actually be joining the OLPC board and contribute funding to the development of its so-called $100 laptop.

More from the AP:

Under their new partnership, Intel and One Laptop Per Child might seek ways to package their computers together for overseas governments. For example, Intel's Classmate, which has to be plugged in, might be an option for urban settings, while the XO laptops, which use very little power and can be mechanically recharged by hand, could go into rural districts.

"There are an awful lot of educational scenarios between K and 12," said William Swope, Intel's director of corporate affairs. "We don't think all those are going to be served by any one form factor, by any one technology, by any one product."

Walter Bender, who oversees software and content for One Laptop Per Child, said the biggest benefit for his group would be Intel's work with the project on future technical developments. That will deepen the pool of software and hardware designers available to perfect the XO machines.

"It's a big problem, more than 15 people at OLPC can do all by themselves," Bender said. "Getting more talent lined up to help us is only a plus."

All I can say is this: Hallelujah.

For several years now, I've been screaming a particular mantra. When it comes to global development, different tools work best in different circumstances. There is no one single magic bullet, technological or otherwise, that will solve the ills of poverty, corruption or educational inequity. Sure, mobile phones have spread like wildfire throughout the developing world and are helping countries make important leaps. But that doesn't mean those countries shouldn't explore using telecentres or low-cost laptops for different situations. Try telling a small-business owner in Ghana that they can only use their mobile phone for all of their productivity needs. And sometimes technology isn't the answer at all, either - we shouldn't be afraid to admit that when that's the case.

Similarly, you can't expect a single branded device, even one created by entities as talented as Intel or MIT, to suit the needs of every development challenge in a particular country. Like the AP article notes, technological needs in an urban context differ from tech needs in a rural context. Classroom settings and business settings are different. The needs of an NGO working in a refugee camp are different from the needs of officials working in a governmental office headquarters.

With Intel and OLPC coming together and acknowledging that their devices will have pros and cons depending on the circumstance, countries that embrace their technologies will hopefully be able to make smarter, more strategic choices. Less time will be wasted in debating whether a government should by this tool or that one as the sole answer to all of their needs, simply because the person pitching the tool is well-resourced or charismatic. Imagine if we could get mobile phone manufacturers, Microsoft, free/open source advocates, etc., to adopt similar mindsets.

Different tools for different circumstances. Perhaps we're making some progress. -andy

Tags: $100 laptop | computers | development | digital divide | education | ICT4D | Intel | OLPC | One Laptop Per Child | poverty | technology

Posted by acarvin at 12:56 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

June 29, 2007

Democratic Presidential Candidates Discuss the Digital Divide

Watch the Video

Tags: Bill Richardson | Christopher Dodd | debates | Dennis Kucinich | digital divide | education technology | election 2008 | Mike Gravel | policy | politics

Posted by acarvin at 7:25 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

Asking the Candidates about the Digital Divide

While they didn't discuss the digital divide during the presidential debate as I had hoped, I managed to put some questions to four of the candidates in the spin room. Most of them didn't give me much more than a sound bite, but it was still interesting. Bill Richardson probably had the broadest perspective on the subject, while Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich focused on ubiquitous broadband and laptops for kids. Mike Gravel offered some terse comments on keeping the Internet free and putting computers in our classrooms.

I've posted an article about what they said on my PBS blog. I'll also put together a video of their comments soon. Hopefully, I'll be able to ask the Republican candidates about the digital divide at the next PBS debate, which will take place at the end of September. -andy

Tags: Bill Richardson | Christopher Dodd | Dennis Kucinich | digital divide | education technology | election 2008 | Mike Gravel | presidential debates

Posted by acarvin at 2:39 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

June 28, 2007

How Seriously Will Tonight's Presidential Debate Tackle the Digital Divide?

It's just past 9am and I'm finding myself checking my watch a lot, hoping the hours of the day will pass quickly so I can head over to Howard University for tonight's Democratic presidential debate. The event is being organized by PBS, and my colleagues there have been kind enough to extend me a press pass so I can blog (and maybe even vlog) the event. For the first time ever, the debate will feature a panel of moderators made up entirely of people of color, and it'll focus on domestic issues that are of particular concern to minority voters.

As you can see on the debate website, they've already broken down the themes of the debate into eight categories, including healthcare, criminal justice, immigration and affordable neighborhoods. But I must say I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that one of the eight themes will be the digital divide. By my count, it's been seven years since a national political forum set out to address the digital divide. As a nation we've become complacent regarding the issue, which is understandable since around three-quarters of US households have Internet access, while minority groups have made significant strides in catching up.

But complacency, as is often the case, doesn't change the fact that there are still challenges that must be met. Because so many people are online today, Internet access is taken to be a given, whether by government, businesses, schools, etc. If you need to access to some kind of government service, you're expected to go online. Students are assumed to have access when completing homework and other assignments. Job applicants are assumed to have access and the requisite tech skills to back it up. When you meet someone who isn't online, the first assumption is that it must be by there choice, rather than the possibility that they can't afford it or lack the skills to use it effectively.

Meanwhile, as I've been arguing for a very long time now, the digital divide isn't just about measuring who has access to the Internet and who doesn't. It's about who has access and the skills necessary to use these tools to improve quality of life for their families and communities. Included in this is the ability for people to become more civically engaged and have more of a voice within local and national decisionmaking. None of you need to hear me repeat the same lecture on how social media tools like blogging and YouTube are giving individual the power to participate in civic discourse in ways that were not previously possible. (Remember, Time Magazine gave us all that Person of the Year award.) Thankfully, research from groups like the Pew Internet Project is beginning to suggest that user-generated content is becoming more democratized. But the conventional wisdom would still suggest that Web 2.0 is largely a place for more affluent, better educated and generally white people.

We need to do a better job of bringing social media tools and skills to people that'll have been disenfranchised, just as we work on strategies to bridge the divide in the more traditional sense. It's a multi-stakeholder challenge, involving the private sector, local and national government, educational instutions, religious institutions and civil society. How will the candidates tackle these issues if they were to become president? So far I've heard close to nothing from any of them. I'm hoping that'll change tonight. -andy

Tags: civic engagement | debates | digital divide | Howard University | PBS | policy | politics | social media | Web 2.0

Posted by acarvin at 9:27 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

June 19, 2007

Ask a Technocrat

Later this week in Geneva, the International Telecommunications Union will be hosting a high-level UN conference on digital content delivery and the future of the Internet. Thomas Crampton of the International Herald Tribune will moderate a panel this Friday on the role international organizations should play in a world of converging media. His panel will feature leadership from entities such as WIPO, UNESCO, the ITU, the EU parliament and the European Broadcasting Union.

Thomas has put out a request for bloggers to submit questions for the panelists. If you'd like to offer your two cents, you can post your questions in the discussion thread on his blog.

Don't think you have any questions? Think a little harder. These folks are playing a major role in issues ranging from bridging the digital divide to who controls intellectual property on the Internet. I'm sure we can come up with some good questions, right? -andy

Tags: digital divide | Geneva | intellectual property | ITU | telecommunications policy | UN | UNESCO | WIPO

Posted by acarvin at 11:03 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 18, 2007

Andrew Rasiej Throws Down the Digital Divide Gauntlet to Presidential Candidates

Personal Democracy Forum co-founder and digital divide activist Andrew Rasiej made a passionate case to revive the digital divide as a major policy issue. He asked how many people in the audience felt the digital divide was still a problem, and few of us did. Andrew went on to talk about poor Internet access in low-income schools and communities, and how inequitable access is hampering civic participation and democracy.

Rasiej then announced that the Personal Democracy Forum will launch an online petition to elect "the first tech president." He's challenging the public to sign onto the petition and forward it to presidential candidates to get them to sign on to these basic principles:

• Declare the Net a public good. Bring broadband to everyone.
  
• Wireless public spectrum must be available and expanded.
  
• We need to support Net Neutrality.
  
• Go from No Child Left Behind to Every Child Connected
  
• We need to create a connected democracy, where people can actually hear public hearings and participate. We need to use this to create transparency and accountability.
  
• We need a national guard of technologists to work during Katrina-like emergencies.

I'll see if I can dig up more about the initiative. -andy

Tags: Andrew Rasiej | digital divide | election | No Child Left Behind

Posted by acarvin at 12:17 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

April 23, 2007

Time-Warner to Allow Fon Wifi Hotspots

Martin Varsavsky, founder of Fon

Jessica Mintz of the Associated Press is reporting today that Time Warner Cable has agreed to a partnership with the insurgent community wifi business Fon. Founded by serial entrepreneur Martin Varsavsky, Fon offers wireless routers that anyone can use to set up a public wifi hotspot. When you get a Fon router, you set it up to allow your neighbors to piggyback on your wireless connection, either for free or a small fee - typically a couple dollars a day.

While Fon has been successful partnering with ISPs in Europe, they hadn't had any success penetrating the US market. (This didn't stop tens of thousands of Fon enthusiasts, or foneros, setting up their own Fon hotspots on the Q-T, though.) Now, Time-Warner cable customers will be allowed to use the technology and become purveyors of community wifi without having to violate their terms of service. The question still remains whether other ISPs will follow suit. Starbucks and T-Mobile, for example, have been somewhat dismissive of Fon, which caused the Spanish company to respond by giving away nearly 7,000 free Fon routers to people who live adjacent to Starbucks, allowing them to provide a competing service.

Last year I got a chance to meet Martin during a presentation he gave at Harvard. Here's a video of him discussing the idea behind Fon. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 8:56 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

February 5, 2007

Bush 2008 Budget Would Cut NTIA Funds in Half?

President Bush has just released his proposed fiscal 2008 budget, and I can just tell all of you are just drooling to get your hands on it. It's not exactly great bedtime reading - okay, maybe it is depending on your bedtime goals - but if you want to get a sense of the president's spending priorities, there's nothing like going straight to the horse's balance sheet.

From what's been published on the Whitehouse website so far, one thing stands out from my perspective as an observer of things technology-related. If you take a look at the section regarding the Department of Commerce, it's hard to find a mention of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). They're the folks that advise the president on telecom policy issues, from spectrum management to US competitiveness in the technology sector. The NTIA was also home to the Technology Opportunity Program (TOP), which awarded grants on digital divide initiatives, and they still manage the Public Telecommunications Facility Program (PTFP), which helps public broadcasting cover the cost of its infrastructure.

If you look at the budget text related to the Department of Commerce, the NTIA is only mentioned once, and it's in the section that lists the line items for each division of the department. In this document, NTIA would get only $19 million, down from the $40 million appropriated to it in FY 2006.

Since the year 2000, there's been a back-and-forth fight with Congress over NTIA's budget, as has been charted by the Federation of American Scientists:

Proposed by the Whitehouse in FY2000: $ 72.3 million
Appropriated by Congress: $ 52.9 million

Proposed by the Whitehouse in FY2001: $ 423.0 million
Appropriated by Congress: $100.4 million

Proposed by the Whitehouse in FY2002:$ 73.0 million
Appropriated by Congress: $ 73.0 million

Proposed by the Whitehouse in FY2003: $ 44.0 million
Appropriated by Congress: $ 73.6 million

Proposed by the Whitehouse in FY2004: $ 25.4 million
Appropriated by Congress: $ 51.1 million

Proposed by the Whitehouse in FY2005: $ 27.6 million
Appropriated by Congress: $ 38.7 million

Proposed by the Whitehouse in FY2006: $ 23.5 million
Appropriated by Congress: $40 million

Given all the flak the White House has gotten from critics about US telecom infrastructure and competitiveness slipping further and further behind much of the rest of the developed world, I was surprised by the line item drop for NTIA. In contrast, just two weeks ago, Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Ted Stevens (R-AK) introduced a bill that would give the NTIA some direction on how to spend more than one billion dollars appropriated to them for emergency communications measures around the US. (Yes, the NTIA does that too.) Meanwhile, the White House offers the same agency $19 million.

Is there more money out there somewhere in another budget document that I'm missing? No doubt the new Congress will have some interesting opinions on the matter. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 3:26 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

January 10, 2007

Brits Propose Bridging Home-School Digital Divide

At the British Education Technology Show today, UK schools minister Jim Knight announced a new goverment goal of bringing Internet access to all students who don't already have it at home. Outlining a series of education technology initiatives, Knight stated he was launching a multi-stakeholder taskforce to develop a sustainable strategy for bridging this home-school digital divide.

Quoting from Knight's speech:

The so-called digital divide cannot be allowed to create and reinforce social and academic divisions.... With more than 800,000 children and young people still restricted to access at school, we run the risk that they could be isolated and left behind. There is no sense in asking every school to provide a learning platform to support children at home if some - likely to be the ones who might most benefit - are cut off from that platform.

Today, I not only want to reinforce that commitment, but to talk further about our aspiration for universal home access and how that might be made a reality. The way to achieve this is by thinking both innovatively and practically, and to use the wisdom of those who really know what they are talking about. That's why we are relying on industry to help with this - and many thanks to Intel, RM and Dell who already doing just that. We need to come up with a sustainable solution which will work for future generations as well as this one, building on existing good practice rather than looking for a quick fix....

I am setting up a Home Access Taskforce which I will personally chair. I want this to bring together key industry players, the voluntary sector, and education representatives to look at the issues. Because ICT at every child's fingertips is not the be-all and end-all of our ambitions. We need to make sure that schools and teachers can take full advantage, and parents too can play a significant role.

So classroom practice will have to adapt to the knowledge that children can access resources at home. It will also mean advice to parents so that they can help their children get the most out of their resources. Let's not forget that the extended family too will benefit....

To conclude, I am committed to ensuring that we will be far-sighted enough to shape the strategic context through policies that make sense for schools and the industry. That we will be proactive in seizing the opportunities technologies offers rather than being overwhelmed by the pace of change. That we will support our workforce to ensure that those opportunities are understood and accepted in the classroom. And most importantly, I am committed to ensuring that we get it right for all learners.

It's a bold idea, but so far is lacking much detail. For example, I can't tell if they're considering some sort of universal service fund akin to the US e-rate program, tax credits for low-income households or some other strategy. Either way, I'd love to be a fly on the wall of those taskforce meetings to see if they can work it out. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 2:53 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

January 3, 2007

A Little Methanol Goes a Long Way with Laptop Fuel Cell

Over the holidays, TopTechNews.com and MobileCrunch reported on a new fuel cell technology by Samsung that might have a direct impact on the digital divide.

Essentially, what they've done is created a docking station for their laptops that is powered by methanol, which is both cheap and easy to produce. (So easy, in fact, that people often die from methanol-tainted homebrew alcohol.) The docking station gives a laptop to stay charged 40 hours a week for four weeks. That's an astonishingly long time, given how my current laptop battery won't even let me get through a single DVD movie. They expect to ship the docking station before the end of the year. Meanwhile, they're also working on a pint-sized version, quite literally - a miniature power source that requires the equivalent of a coffee cup's worth of methanol to power a laptop for a week.

Most of the news coverage I've seen so far about fuel cells has been in relationship to cars and foreign oil dependency, so I was pleasantly surprised to hear about Samsung's announcement. There's no mention how much the fuel sells will cost, but if they can get the price point down, it'll be interesting to see how it penetrates developing nations and other places with large communities of people who don't have access to reliable energy sources. Methanol fuel cells would help people who are off the grid to power their digital tools more reliably, and this could impact the adoption of mobile and portable Internet devices.

Meanwhile, the only by-product of the fuel cell is water. Now if Samsung could ensure that this water is safe to drink, talk about killing two birds with one stone.... -andy

Posted by acarvin at 12:51 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

October 17, 2006

Debate 2.0: Gubernatorial Blogging as an Exercise in E-Democracy

For the last week, there's been an extraordinary online exercise taking place in Minnesota. Actually, it's taking place in cyberspace - a 10-day gubernatorial e-debate in which the six leading candidates for governor are interacting on a group blog. Moderated by online democracy whiz Steve Clift in partnership with e-democracy.org and the Blandin Foundation, the e-debate takes advantage of a variety of Web 2.0 tools to give the public a whole new way of observing - and participating - in a political debate.

The debate began as a video blog, with each candidate posting a brief introduction on YouTube. These have been followed by a series of questions, answers and rebuttals on a wide range of topics, from the digital divide to healthcare to the national guard. Different questions request the candidates to respond in different formats. For example, a question on what the candidates would do to improve access to wifi and broadband would only allow a 70-word response, forcing the candidates to be succinct, while discussions on healthcare could be open-ended. Candidates could submit their responses by email or by voicemail, which would be transcribed by the debate organizers.

Meanwhile, the public can participate in a variety of ways. They can follow the debate on the website, as well as via rss and email. The responses include a rating system, allowing the public to grade them on a scale of one to five (the average rating seems to be around 2.5 at the moment.) All the candidates' responses can be reused according to a Creative Commons attribution license, meaning anyoen can do pretty much anything they want with it as long as they cite the e-debate website as its source.

For those people who wish to dive into the debate, Steve and his colleagues have set up multiple platforms for online interaction. You can join their bulletin board or e-list. You can upload your photos or video to Flickr.com YouTube respectively and tag them "mn06," which causes them to be displayed automatically in a photo gallery. If you have a microphone one you computer, you can record audio comments. And of course, they're aggregating blog post that mention the debate.

On the whole, I've been very impressed with the e-debate so far. The website is easy to use, allowing for various forms of multimedia while recognizing the importance of accessibility and low-bandwidth access. In some ways, though, the e-debate mimics the modern political debate a little too closely, with only limited direct interaction between the candidates. I would love to see more instances where candidates are responding directly to each other's posts rather than sticking to their pre-determined answers. I'd also love to see more of a public imprimatur on the individual questions, as in "Jenny Malcomsen of St. Paul asks, 'What would your administration do in regards to immigration reform," with their questions being presented in the media format of their choice. But these are small bones to pick in comparison to what's being accomplished.

Once again, Steve Clift is making the world safe for e-democracy - and every politician should take notice. -andy

Tags: digital divide | e-democracy | e-government | mobcasting | odeo | politics | tagging | video blogging | web 2.0 | youtube

Posted by acarvin at 9:54 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

October 13, 2006

Yunus and the Grameen Bank Win the Nobel Peace Prize

I couldn't believe my ears this morning. One of my heroes had just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Muhammad Yunus is the founder of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, a truly pioneering institution in the fight against rural poverty. As a young man in the early 1970s, Yunus spent time in the US on a Fullbright scholarship; when he returned home to Bangladesh, which was in the midst of a famine, he realized the current system of poverty alleviation simply wasn't working.

So Yunus created the Village (Grameen in Bangla) Bank. Rather than lending money to typical bank borrowers, Yunus decided that his loans would go to the poorest of the poor - farmers, village women, even beggars. The bank developed a system of offering microloans - loans often less than $100, the kind of amount that any other bank would never have bothered to award to its customers. In Bangladesh, though, a loan of $50 or $75 to a rural villager can mean the difference between abject poverty and ipermanently mproving the quality of life for their family. Microloans allow them to establish a kiosk selling dry goods, buy new farming implements, even pay for health insurance. They take the burden off extremely low-income households and give them a fighting chance to achieve prosperity.

Many bankers scoffed at the idea that a microloan program could ever work in a place as poor as Bangladesh. Surely, most borrowers would default on their loans and cause Grameen to go bankrupt. But Yunus proved them wrong. Of nearly $6 billion loaned over the last 30 years, an astounding 98.85% has been recovered.

The Grameen Bank has had a profound effect on the women of Bangladesh. Approximately 95% of the bank's borrowers are women - this, in a country where women historically had little to no economic independence. Because of Grameen, millions of Bangladeshi women have started their own businesses and prospered. One of their best known accomplishments is the digital divide initiative known as the Grameen Phone program. Women are given loans to start small telecom businesses in their home village. They receive a mobile phone and training, then make that phone available to villagers for community use. For villages with no other telecommunications link to the outside world, the Grameen Phone program has created new opportunities for local residents while helping women achieve improved socioeconomic status. It's proved so successful that Grameen is now replicating the initiative in Rwanda and other central African countries.

Perhaps what's most exciting about this Nobel selection is that the people of Bangladesh can rightfully claim that they as individuals have won a share of the Peace Prize. Approximately 94% of the bank is owned by its 6.6 million borrowers - the farmers, the women entrepreneurs, the beggars - while the remaining six percent is owned by the government of Bangladesh, which of course represents the people. No matter how you slice it, this years Peace Prize has been rewarded to the Bangladeshis themselves. Muhammad Yunus may be the one standing in Oslo this December - and rightfully so - but he will be standing on the shoulders of millions of Bangladeshi citizens, each of whom must be swelling with joy this day.

Learn more about the Grameen Bank, as told by Muhammad Yunus himself:

Full disclosure: some of you may remember that the Grameen Foundation funded my March 2005 trip to India's Baramati conference. One of the results of that trip was my Indian video blog, Baramati Bus Stop. If you haven't watched it before, take a look:

Posted by acarvin at 9:35 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

September 28, 2006

Digital Divide 101 With Amanda Congdon

If you've been reading my blog this week, you'll know that Amanda Congdon was in town on Monday, and we spent a few hours together talking Internet culture and hanging out with local video bloggers. Today she published a video of our time together, including me serving as a poor navigator through the District (shame on me) and chatting about the digital divide in the lawn of the Episcopal church across from my old apartment in Dupont Circle.

All in all, I think I managed to get by without making too much of an idiot of myself, but I definitely must get into the habit of tucking in my shirt before being filmed. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 5:37 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

September 27, 2006

New Email Scam Claims to Help Bridge the Digital Divide

Earlier today I received an email purporting to come from the "Bill Gates Foundation" (as opposed to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) saying that I'd just won 25,000 euros as part of a "lottery for Internet expansion in Africa." The email, composed in French, claims that that the so-called foundation had set up a lottery of "50,000,000 millions" euros - I'm not sure if that means 50 million or 50 trillion, though 50 trillion would certainly be more generous. For some reason, they claim that I'm getting a small chunk of this change, and somehow it'll help bridge the digital divide in Africa.

Unfortunately, they didn't transfer the money to my PayPal account. Instead, they said I needed to provide basic contact information, including my passport number and copies of any other pertinent ID card. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. ;-/

Here's the full text.

From: "BILL GATES FOUNDATION LOTTERY FOR INTERNET EXPANSION" To: andycarvin@yahoo.com Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:03:54 +0200 Subject: BILL GATES FOUNDATION LOTTERY

A votre aimable attention:
Nous avons le plaisir de vous annoncez que vous êtes l'un des heureux
gagnants de la :
BILL GATES FOUNDATION LOTTERY FOR INTERNET EXPANSION IN AFRICA,
dont le siège mondial pour l'Afrique se trouve à Paris.

Une loterie portant sur les adresses email des internautes africains.
La valeur totale en jeu est de 50.000 000 millions Euros et votre
adresse à été tiré au sort par sélection informatique lors de notre deuxième
tirage annuel effectué la semaine dernière au siège mondial sis à
Paris.
Vous faites donc partie des heureux gagnants et votre gain est de 250
000 Euros.

Pour entrer en possession de votre lot, veuillez adressez exclusivement
les informations suivant par email votre:
Nom:
Prénoms:
Adresse complète:
Numéro de téléphone:
Fax, email ainsi qu'une copie de votre carte nationale d'identité ou
passeport.
Après quoi il vous sera expliqué comment entrer en possession de votre
lot.
Recevez encore toutes nos félicitations

Isabelle Chevalier
Directrice des Opérations
BILL GATES FOUNDATION
12, Avenue Léonard de Vinci
92916 PARIS LA DEFENSE

Anyone else received this scam? I'm wondering if they're working their way through some digital divide-related mailing list. Either way, I've already forwarded a copy of it to the real Gates Foundation, in case they want to post something about it. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 11:27 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

September 8, 2006

Measuring The School-Home Digital Divide

The National Center for Education Statistics has just released a new report on the school-home digital divide. It's been a while since the US government has released a report about the digital divide, let alone use the term "digital divide," so it's interesting to see them paint such a stark picture of the technology gap that exists between well-to-do and underprivileged students. On the plus side, the research suggests that Internet access in school is indeed equitable, with little difference among students in terms of gender, race, disability. The same thing applies to the income and education levels of their parents - low-income children with poorly educated parents are just about as likely to use the Internet in school as high-income peers with well-educated parents.

Unfortunately, this equity vanishes the moment you leave the schoolhouse gate. I blogged about the statistics in detail over at PBS learning.now, so here are some of the highlights:

At home, 78% of white students have Internet access, which isn't enormously different than the percentage with access at school. In comparison, only 46% of African American students, 48% of Latinos and 43% of Native Americans had access at home; Asian-Americans and mixed ethnicity students fared better at 74% apiece. Regarding disability, 68% of non-disabled students and 55% of disabled students had home access.

Parental education and income levels also reveal a stark divide at home. While a whopping 88% kids whose parents achieved a graduate-level of education had home Net access, the same was true of only 55% of kids whose parents completed high school - and only 35% of kids whose parents didn't. If parents speak just Spanish at home, only 32% of kids had home Internet access, compared with 69% of kids whose parents spoke English. Lastly, 88% of kids whose parents earned more than $75,000 a year had home access, compared to just 37% of kids whose parents earned less than $20,000 a year.

I'm still struck by the fact that the report uses the term "digital divide" so freely - more than a dozen times in the whole report. By using phrases like "There is a ‘digital divide,'" the report seems to go against the last five years of federal government officials not using the term. Does it signal a sea change? My guess is probably not. Perhaps the Secretary of Education may pepper it into a speech but that'll probably be the end of it, unless the media and the blogosphere rally around the report's findings and make a big deal about it. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 12:15 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

July 10, 2006

Podcast: Angus King on the Maine Laptop Program

Last month while I was attending the AALF conference here in Boston I mentioned I'd recorded a podcast of Angus King, former governor of Maine, talking about the state's groundbreaking laptop initiative. I didn't want to post it without getting his permission, and earlier today I received an email from him giving me the thumbs up. So here's the podcast. It's about 50 minutes long and around 43 megabytes. As always, sorry about the audio quality but it gets a little crackly when I compress it. For those of you who would prefer a text version, here are my notes from his speech. -andy

Tags: Angus King | digital divide | education technology | laptops | Maine | policy | Seymour Papert | students

Posted by acarvin at 6:30 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

July 4, 2006

Digital Divide Network Reaches 10,000 User Accounts

Earlier today, the Digital Divide Network had its 10,000th user account created. The person in question, Katharina Reinecke of the University of Zurich, Switzerland, probably has no idea she helped us reach this milestone.

Technically, she is probably not the 10,000th _person_ to join DDN, because several DDN admins have multiple accounts. So the actual 10,000th person will probably be someone later today or tomorrow. Nonetheless, it's great to see DDN finally reaching this milestone after six and a half years. Special thanks to all of you in the network for making this milestone possible!

Posted by acarvin at 11:49 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

June 22, 2006

Angus King: A Brief History of Maine's Laptop Program

Here are my notes from former Maine Governor Angus King's AALF keynote about the Maine middle school laptop initiative. The notes aren't verbatim, but I tried to capture some of his more colorful and entertaining remarks word-for-word. I also hope to have a podcast online soon, but I'm waiting for the governor's permission to post it since I didn't get permission before recording it.

How did Maine's middle school laptop program happen? It started with a data point, three insights and a lunch.

The data point: Maine was stuck in 37th place for per-capita income. We hadn't been able to break out of this rut.

First insight: I don't know where the hell the economy is going. Tom Friedman talks about teaching Indians how to speak with a Minnesotan accent to provide better service at India's call centers. We don't know where the jobs are gonna come from or be like, but they'll probably involve two things: more education and technology. That's the only thing you can predict about the jobs of 20 years from now.

Insight number two: We're all chasing the same thing, we governors. We all want more jobs, better jobs. And everybody thinks they know the formula: cut taxes, encourage R&D, international trade, etc. But if we're all doing the same thing, how are we ever going to get out of 37th place? That was a scary insight, because I thought I was pretty good. We couldn't win that race. You don't get ahead of the competition by merely keeping up.

Insight number three: I realized that everything we did was incremental. Everything was baby steps. Like giving a teachers a half-percent raise. One year we paved 820 miles of road, compared to 780 miles the previous year, and we treat it like a major accomplishment. We act like these are big deals but they're just incremental.

The Lunch: with Seymour Papert of MIT. I said to him we have five kids for every computer. What if we could have three kids per computer? Seymour shook his head. What about two kids per computer? Wouldn't matter, Seymour said. Then he said, "It is only when it is one to one that the power occurs." But this was 1996 and we didn't have money to do this.

By 2000, our finance people said we'd have a $70 mil surplus in the state budget that no one anticipated. It hadn't been earmarked for anything. So I put these insights together and said I want to do something that helps people compete, isn't incremental, and should involve edtech. We could have used the money for anything, but I wanted to do this. My chief of staff said that we could create an endowment to give laptops to every 7th grader forever. And I said, wow.

We worked on this idea and announced it six weeks later. Other people plan projects like this for more than a year - that's better. But if we had waited, the legislature would have spent the money. If we didn't get our mitts on that money, it would get parceled out and been used incrementally.

A reporter then asked a question we hadn't thought of - will the kids or the schools own the laptops? I had no idea. I could have said I don't know, but I blurted out, "the kids." Wrong answer. Huge political mistake. People hated the idea that the govt would give these tools to kids. Seventh graders became the most hated minority in the state. So that was a big mistake. It was referred to as Governor King's Laptop Giveaway. Why don't more politicians try projects like this? It's because I got the shit kicked out of me. Ten to one of all emails were against it. "Governor, what were you smoking?" "Governor, we are a poor state, let someone else lead." Yes, and they will still lead. One guy even suggested it would be better to give kids chainsaws.

(The governor's Bill Gates joke. I was on the way to meet him the first time, and was talking with a trooper about what I should say to him. The trooper said, "How about, 'Dad, don't you recognize me?'")

So people hated the project, but I knew it was still the right thing to be doing. We had a two-prong strategy: deal with the legislature, and deal with the public. I had the legislators come in and see a mock classroom with laptop. Finally, one of my allies in the legislature - and as an independent, I don't have many - came down and said we're not going to be able to get this through. Instead we should put the money in a fund and create a taskforce. I said "sold" - because I knew that was the only way to keep the money. After a year of taskforcing, they came back with a recommendation - stick with one-to-one computing.

We then built whatever alliances we could. But people were against it simply because it was my idea. Welcome to the world of politics. Then I went on a teaching tour, to help people understand what we were talking about. We had a dog and pony show, working with Apple, handing out iBooks, then I'd come in and teach US history. And all the cameras would be rolling in the background. So I taught the Battle of Gettysburg and Pickett's Charge, using a website that had a collection of relevant sites and source materials, including the Gettysburg Address, in Lincoln's own handwriting. The depth of content blew away anything you could find in a textbook. Really deep stuff. I did this routine all over the state.

Then a crucial thing happened. I was talking with a business group, and they said, "Let's just do this in our own town of Guilford, and not wait for the government." So in this poor, rural town, we suddenly had a pilot project. Instead of arguing with people, I'd tell people to go to Guilford and watch how engaged the students are. And that probably sold it as much as anything else.

The legislature, meanwhile, insisted on funding more pilots. We'd still have only pilots today if we had stuck with that. I said we'd do it now, state wide, because of equity. This is an incredibly powerful tool for equity.

Then comes the Constitution - God bless the Constitution. In the end, they needed a budget, and guess who had to sign the budget? Me. I said, if you want to have a state budget, you know what had to be in it. It was simple as that. Pretty straightforward. You've got persuasion, but then you've got power.

Now the laptop program is finishing its fourth year. The endowment got spent in that time. It's hard to hold that money when you're also cutting Medicaid. But now it's being renewed for another four years, because it's proved itself. It's worked. The teachers, parents, students, convinced the legislature that it was successful and should be continued.

What did we learn? If you're thinking of doing something like this, go to one vendor. Don't spread it around - you want one throat to choke. When something goes wrong, you don't want the computer company blaming the network company. Get one vendor who can deal with the whole issue and be your partner. For us, Apple was a real partner. They moved people to Maine, were fantastic with repairs, a real partner.

Things also have to work. If you're gonna do this, the damn things have to work. If something doesn't work more than once or twice, the teachers will fold up the laptops and go back to the book. Reliability is a huge factor in this. A teacher just isn't going to put up with it otherwise.

Third - you can't spend too much time or money on professional development. The best thing we did was focus on professional development from the very beginning, starting with a grant from the Gates Foundation. This is not a hardware project. It's an educational project. This device is something that assists teachers, not replace them. So you need to help teachers integrate it into the curriculum. If all you're doing is buying hardware, it's going to be a failure, and I don't want that to happen because my name is associated with this kind of project.

Fourth - assessment. This obsession with testing is focused on rote knowledge. It's not capturing what these tools can really do. It's a tool that helps you solve problems, which is what life is all about. It's not for memorizing what year Columbus discover America. But the tests are testing that kind of knowledge. So do not - do not - promise your school board that one-to-one laptops will improve test scores, or you'll be out of a job. You can say they improve writing skills - all the research is showing this. But it's really about problem solving.

The model of education for 500 years has been a teacher becomes an expert and dumps data on kids. Thomas Jefferson could know everything, but now, no one can, because there is so much more knowledge out there today. We should look at law school as a model, because there's too much damn law. Nobody can learn all of it. Instead, you learn how to ask the right questions, identify the issues, and find the law. That's a much better model for kids to learn in a knowledge-rich society. It's a different kind of learning. Like they say, we've gone from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side. We're not going to beat the rest of the world on rote learning.

Innovation is the only thing America has. Natural resources and capital can go anywhere, technology can get zapped around the world. Innovation is something we have had historically - a confluence of experience, education and technology. Yet we as a country are frittering it away. Currently the federal govt has zero dollars budgeted for education technology. Zero. We're like England in 1900 - the most powerful country in the world, but for how much longer? We've had an incredible run for 60 years, but it's only going to continue if we're going to innovate.

My two favorite philosophers are Darwin and Gretsky. God said why, and Darwin said how. We all learned about survival of the fittest. I always used to think it was the ones with big claws who survived. But if that were true, the dinosaurs would be in charge. But the fittest are those who are most adaptable to change - and we're in a period of the most rapid change in human history. Those that change will survive. Resist and die. Then Wayne Gretsky - greatest scorer of all time, but he's not the biggest or fastest. How? "I skate to where the puck is going to be; everyone else skates to where it is." I don't think you have to be a genius to know where things are going to be in 10 years. It's going to involve technology, digital literacy - and that's where innovation will come. The next Bill Gates may be in a rural Maine town, but would have never had a chance if the state hadn't put a tool in his hands.

Final Thought: The Five Ps for Success:

Plan
Partnership
Perseverance
Persuasion
Passion

Those of you who are trying this, know that this is the right thing to do - but you've got to have these five Ps for it to work.

(Another gubenatorial joke: What's a Canadian? A Canadian is an unarmed north American with health insurance.)

"Oh, and come to Maine," he said while leaving the conference. "It's really nice this time of year. I used to get five percent of everything spent there." :-) -andy

Posted by acarvin at 8:25 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

At the AALF Conference

I just arrived at the Anytime Anywhere Learning Foundation conference at Northeastern University in Boston, after spending the last 45 minutes wandering around like an idiot across campus, until I realized I was looking at the campus map upside down. (It's amazing how a lack of sleep can lead to a collapse of geographic literacy and spacial intelligence.) The conference is focusing on the role of ubiquitous Internet access and mobile computing devices in education. Former Maine governor Angus King will be speaking later today about Maine's middle school laptop program, while tomorrow we'll hear from Tim Magner of the US Department of Education and Mike Furdyk of TakingITGlobal. Should be an interesting conference. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 2:11 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

June 1, 2006

New Report Says US Broadband Access is Up - and Online Creativity is Way Up

The latest broadband report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project offers some tantalizing evidence that certain aspects of the digital divide are finally being bridged. For many years, high-speed Internet access was the realm of the elite - generally made up of white, well-off, well-educated suburban families. According to the Pew report, which surveyed respondents during the first quarter of 2006, broadband access is rising across the board. And who's using broadband for online publishing? You might be surprised. I certainly was.

As of March 2006, 42% of all American adults - 84 million people - had a high-speed Internet connection at home, up from 30% the previous year. Amazingly, the 24 million new broadband users surpass the total number of broadband users that were online a scant four years ago.

Home broadband access, 2000-2006. Source: Pew Home Broadband Adoption 2006.

Whites continue to surpass African Americans on broadband access, with 42% of white households having access, compared to 31% of African Americans. At 41%, English-speaking Latinos have reached parity with white households, but the report does not account for the non-English speaking Latinos, who presumably go online much less. Income and education continue to be major barriers, though. While 68% of families earning more than $75,000 a year are online, only 21% of households making $30,000 or less had access. Similarly, (Interestingly, the strongest broadband growth rate occurred in middle-income households making $30,000-$50,000 a year.) 62% of households with someone completing a college degree had broadband, compared to only 17% of households in which no one achieved a high school diploma. So while progress is being made in terms of the racial digital divide, income and education remain enormous roadblocks.

Home broadband demographics. Source: Pew Home Broadband Adoption 2006.

My first reaction to this data was that the jump in broadband access is a direct result of telephone companies lowering the cost of DSL. Many DSL companies have started to offer introductory rates of $15 a month, less than half the typical rate. Indeed, the average cost of DSL in December 2005 was $32, down from $38 in February 2004. (Cable Internet access remained steady at $41.) So it would seem that cost must have been a major factor in getting new customers to switch. But according to the Pew report, this isn't the case. A whopping 57% of respondents cited speed as their primary reason for getting broadband, while only three percent said their reason was the cost of broadband lowering to an affordable level. This suggests that more people are willing to pay for broadband because of the quality of the speed. Perhaps the reasoning behind this is that so many websites now require broadband to function properly, they're egging households into upgrading their Internet access.

The Pew report also takes a look at how broadband households are using the Internet to publish online content. Overall, 35% of Internet users - 48 million people - have posted content to the Internet. Broadband users are more likely to post online content than dialup users - 42% versus 27%. This is especially true of bloggers and people who manage their own websites. While an average of eight percent of Internet users publish their own blog, 11% of broadband users had blogs, compared to only four percent of dialup users. Similarly, while an average of 15% of Internet users published websites, 17% of broadband users did this compared to only 11% of dialup users. (I wonder, though, how many of the respondents said they published a website rather than a blog because they didn't know the term "blog," since some online journaling tools that are essentially blogs don't use that terminology.)

User generated online content. Source: Pew Home Broadband Adoption 2006.

Demographics of online publishers. Source: Pew Home Broadband Adoption 2006.

Perhaps the most interesting finding of the report suggests that user-generate content is being democratized. Historically, online publishing was the purview of the elite. "Demographically, the broadband elite fits a classic early adopter profile for technology users - heavily male, well educated, and comfortable financially," says the report. But even this is beginning to change. More women are posting content online. Among broadband users, 39% of women post online content, compared to 43% of men. And income is becoming less of a factor as well. Among users earning $50,000 or less, 46% of them had published some sort of content online, compared to only 46% of those making more than $50,000. Of course, this doesn't mean that most online content is being made by lower-income users. There are many higher-income users online than low-income users; it's just that there's a higher percentage of online publishers within the lower-income demographic.

Pew then asked respondents if they had ever done any of these specific activities: shared something they created themselves like a story or a video, created their own webpage, worked on others' webpages, or created a blog. Not surprisingly, young people were much more likely to say yes. While 43% of respondents ages 18-29 said they had done one of these online publishing activities, only 29% of 50- to 64-year olds said yes, while just 18% of those 65 and older said yes. Meanwhile, race appeared to be a small factor, but in a rather counter-intuitive way: while 32 percent of whites said they had done one of these online publishing activities, 39% of African Americans and 42% of English-speaking Latinos had done so as well. So while whites may continue to use broadband in higher numbers, a higher percentage of African American and Latino broadband users are taking advantage of their access as content publishers. Similarly, income and education gaps are relatively minimal in terms of content production: 32% of users without a high school diploma versus 38% of those with a college degree, and 32% of users earning less than $30,000 a year versus 41% of those making $75,000 or more.

Does the Pew report suggest that the digital divide has been bridged? Hardly. The vast majority of low-income and low-skilled households lag behind, and gaps exist among racial groups, albeit less than before. But as we continue to work to give more people the skills and opportunities to go online, it would seem that more people of different racial, economic and educational backgrounds are taking advantage of those skills and opportunities to contribute online content. To me, this validates the whole notion of bridging the digital divide - democratizing cyberspace and giving people a voice.

It's not about access. It never was. It's about what people do with that access. And more people than ever are using that access to be creators of content, rather than mere consumers of it. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 9:55 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 24, 2006

A Day of Out(r)age

Watch the video

Posted by acarvin at 6:52 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 23, 2006

Public Media - An International Perspective

Watch the video

Posted by acarvin at 5:30 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 22, 2006

This Wednesday: Day of (out)Rage

On Wednesday I'm planning to take part in the Day of (out)Rage, a day of national protest against the COPE Act. For those of you who haven't been following the debate on Capitol Hill, the COPE Act would allow telecom companies to ignore the basic Internet principle of network neutrality, letting them charge users more for complete access to the Internet, while peddling their own content instead. It would also take away local control of public access TV channels. And for those of you who are worried about the digital divide, the bill would let telecom companies conduct redlining, which is refusing to build out broadband access in low-income neighborhoods simply because the residents are poor.

In protest against this legislation, there will be protests in NYC, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. I'll be at the Boston rally, which starts at 1:30pm in Boston at the State House grand staircase. To learn more, visit saveaccess.org or listen to this podcast. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 7:23 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 18, 2006

Public Media Podcast Part 1: Fred Johnson and Andy Carvin

Here's a podcast of the first part of yesterday's public media community meeting. It includes opening remarks by Fred Johnson and an international perspective on public media and the digital divide from me. Here's a link to text notes from the session as well. The podcast is in mp3 format; sorry about the static from the compression process. A Windows Media version can be found here:

http://www.andycarvin.com/podcasts/publicmedia1.wma

Posted by acarvin at 11:36 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

Public Media: Apocalypse Soon?

Fred Johnson listens to Nettrice Gaskins as Danielle Martin liveblogs the event.

Last night I participated in a fascinating community meeting in Boston's Chinatown about the future of public media and its current threats in Congress. Organized by Fred Johnson of UMass/Boston and his Tactical Media Group, the panel included media advocate Alice Myatt, Dan Coughlin of Manhattan Neighborhood Networks and myself. I talked about public media and the digital divide at the international level, while Alice and Dan respectively addressed the issue from a national and local perspective.

Danielle Martin liveblogged the event, so I encourage you to read her detailed notes from the gathering. Meanwhile, I'm currently compressing the audio of the event into three separate podcasts that I'll post shortly. And word has it that video of the event will soon be available - I'll share that too when I get ahold of it. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 11:25 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 12, 2006

Eszter Hargittai on What College Students Actually Do Online

Professor Eszter Hargittai of Northwestern University just gave a fascinating talk about her research on how college students use the Internet, the digital divide that exists in terms of how people use the Net, and its policy implications. Here are some notes. -andy

The digital divide: We need to move beyond the binary thinking of haves and have nots and start thinking about the second-level digital divide - differences between people who are online and how they're using the Internet.

Various factors influence IT use - socioeconomic status, equipment, autonomy, social support, level of experience. And skills play a major part in influencing how they use digital media. But how do all of these factors interrelate? What's the relationship between skills and socioeconomic status, for example?

She tries to focus her research on average users rather than niche groups. The average person comes up with things you'd never imagine as they try to figure out how to manouver online.

She collected data from 270 young adults in a fall 2004 phone survey. She found that people with higher education had higher levels of online skills. But what really mattered was whether or not they had autonomy in their use - could they use it at home on their own terms.

People in more privileged positions might be using the Internet in ways that really benefit them - this adds to the divide.

Now she's looking at college student use of the Internet, based on 1,300 students at University of Illinois/Chicago (UIC) between Feb and March 2006.

Demographics: 58 percent female, less than 50% white - very diverse.

Used the internet for six years on average, 12 hours a week, with 80%+ using it several times a day. Around 87.5% of their use is at home, with only 8.2 percent in a library or lab, and 1.7 percent at work.

When asked how often students visit blogs, 29.1 percent visit personal blogs of friends and family on a daily basis, with 60 percent doing it sometimes. Interestingly, the least likely category of blogs they access are political blogs, even though these are the blogs emphasized in mainstream media.

Types of sites used: facebook, flickr, google, craigslist, livejournal, blogger, delicious, dig, skype, youtube, myspace. Facebook was most popular - 78 percent - and 50 percent for myspace.

64 percent have ever visited the Chicago tribune, 62 percent BBC, druge 3 percent, instapundit 1 percent, daily kos 1 percent.

Most popular activities: getting info for school work, downloading/ listening to music; looking up a word or definition; finding a fact about something.

41 percent knew what an aggregator/newsreader was; 36 never read privacy statements.

User backgrounds and types of activities: there are statistically significant differences in behavior.

Groups that use the Web less frequently: Women, African Americans, Latinos, students with parents who have lower levels of education, people who don't access the net at home much, people who don't own laptops, people who know less about the Internet

Differences in skill, not just access, may contribute to digital inequality. Skill differences may result in differential web use, suggesting different opportunities. It's not enough to focus on technical access; training and support are absolutely necessary.

tag: beyondbroadcast

Posted by acarvin at 3:38 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

Birds of a Feather Tonight on Journalism, Media Literacy & the Digital Divide

For those of you who are attending the Beyond Broadcasting conference, Shava Nerad and I will be co-hosting a birds-of-a-feather on journalism, media literacy and the digital divide. We want to discuss the spectrum of media criticism skills you need to participate as a content producer today, and the challenges faced when not all communities have equal access to these skills. To join us, please go to the conference wiki and add your name to the list of attendees for the BoF. We'll be meeting at Pho Pasteur in Cambridge (no, we're not buying, but we're good company). Hope you'll join us... -andy

Posted by acarvin at 1:51 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

Public Broadcasters Need to Take the Digital Divide Seriously

Rebecca MacKinnon just asked the broadcasters panel at the Beyond Broadcast conference about their responsibility in bridging the digital divide. As broadcasters embrace the Internet and encourage the public to contribute their own content to public discourse, should they be concerned about the fact that the digital divide? If the elites in the community - ie, tech savvy Internet users - are the only ones that can participate in the new world of public media, is it truly public media?

David Liroff of WGBH and Bill Buzenberg of MPR both commented on the importance of having public broadcasters involved in public outreach to ensure that all people can have a voice in a community. Bill, however, questioned whether they should be the ones lobbying for greater Internet access for the poor. Isn't there a group better suited to be doing this?

Frankly, not really. We digital divide activists have been fighting what's generally a losing battle as far as policymaking is concerned. Very little attention is ever paid to the digital divide as far as the media is concerned, so there's little pressure for policymakers to deal with it. As public broadcasters embrace Web 2.0, it makes sense for them to engage the public and policymakers in a frank conversation about the digital divide, media literacy and what it means to be a 21st century citizen. Public broadcasting, at a fundamental level, exists to serve the public interest. Isn't bridging the digital divide in the public interest?

I'm thrilled to see people like Bill Buzenberg leading the way in demonstrating how the Internet can be used to get local citizens involved in shaping the way news stories get developed. It's an exciting time to be a Web-savvy public broadcaster, absolutely. But as I've said in the past, it ain't "We Media" unless it includes all of us. Part of the public debate must focus on what happens as disenfranchised populations with limited Internet access and IT skills fall further and further beyond. There is so much potential in utilizing the Internet to empower the voiceless. We need to talk more about municipal wifi and entrepreneurial efforts like Fon.com to get low-cost wireless into every community. We need to make sure that public media initiatives truly reflect the diversity of the community. We need to ensure that all people have equal opportunity to gain the skills to participate in public media. Otherwise, we're just taking the privileged upper middle class audience that has traditionally benefited from public broadcasting and giving them cool new tools to play with, leaving disenfranchised populations in the dust, wonder when they'll get their chance to speak.

tag: beyondbroadcast

Posted by acarvin at 11:12 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 8, 2006

Scientific Publishers Leery of Cornyn-Lieberman Open Access Legislation

Last week, US Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut) proposed the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (PDF), a groundbreaking bill that will shake the foundations of scientific research publishing. The bill proposes that scientific articles based on research funded by the federal government must be made freely available to the public over the Internet within six months of publishing. If enacted into law, the bill would force scientific publishers to release the full text of articles that would otherwise be accessible to libraries and professionals who pay hefty fees for access. All federal agencies that spend at least $100 million a year funding scientific research would require its grantees to participate in the program, hosting the research texts online in a "stable digital repository."

"Tax payer-funded research should be accessible to tax payers," said Sen. Lieberman in a statement. "Our bill will give researchers, medical professionals and patients in Connecticut and throughout the nation access to scientific discoveries and advancements that can help bring new treatments and cures to the public."

"Unfortunately, as it stands now, most Americans have little - to no - timely access to this wealth of information, despite the fact that their tax dollars paid for the research," said Sen. Cornyn in a speech on the Senate floor. "Our bill simply says to all researchers who seek government funding that we want the results of your work to be seen by the largest possible audience. It will ensure that U.S. taxpayers do not have to pay twice for the same research - once to conduct it, and a second time to read it."

Cornyn continued:

The Internet has dramatically altered how the world gathers and shares information. The Internet gives the homemaker in Houston the ability to find volumes of information about a recent medical diagnosis given to a family member. It allows a young community college student in rural West Texas -- a great distance from the nearest research library -- to learn the latest in scientific discovery and hopefully spur him to continue his studies.

While a comprehensive competitiveness agenda is still in the works, ensuring greater access to scientific information is one way we can help bolster interest in these important fields and move this issue forward while at the same time helping accelerate the pace of discovery and innovation. Through this legislation, I hope to ensure that students, researchers, and every American has access the published results of federally funded research, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

The bill would mark a sea change in the way scientific research is published. The majority of scientific publishers guard the copyright of their content very closely, often allowing only an abstract of the content to be made available for public consumption. For those people who wish to have the full text, they must either pay a small fortune in subscription fees or physically visit a research library that subscribes to the publication. With this bill, the text of these research journals would not be kept in a veritable lock box. It would guarantee that the public would be able to review the research for itself in a timely fashion, while still allowing publishers exclusive rights to the content for the first six months of publishing.

Not surprisingly, publishers are none too pleased. In today's New York Times, Howard H. Garrison of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology worried that the legislation could inflict serious economic damage on the publishing industry. "People won't be able to gauge how many people will be reading the articles and that has ramifications for advertising, promotion," he said. "Does it reach 1,000 scientists, 2,000 or 50? If the articles are on a government Web site, your readership may be halved."

Other publishers, such as Joann Boughman of the American Society of Human Genetics, take a different stance: that the public shouldn't necessarily be trusted to use this knowledge wisely. "Consumers themselves are saying, 'We have the right to know these things as quickly as we can.'" she told the Times. "That is not incorrect. However, wherever there is a benefit, there is a risk associated with it."

The sentiment of this statement is as old as the printing press, when church leaders feared that giving the general public direct access to the Bible would undermine their authority and lead to the corruption of religious practices. It takes the position that certain types of knowledge should only be in the hands of those who have the training, the money or the power to utilize it; otherwise, the public will be at "risk," as suggested by Ms. Boughman. But knowledge does not belong to one class of people. Open access publishing recognize everyone's right to access knowledge in a time and manner of their choosing, without mediation by those who wish to control that knowledge. It will allow people to make more informed judgments on medical treatment, and assist others in improving their understanding of important research that was previously available only to those who could afford access.

Meanwhile, the predictions that this law will undermine the publishing industry may be premature. There are already numerous open-access publishers experimenting with new economic models, such as the journals of Public Library of Science. The Internet has already forced the broadcast industry, the newspaper industry, the telephone industry, even the movie rental industry to rework their practices. Why shouldn't the scientific publishing industry be expected to do the same, particularly when the end result will inevitably serve the public good? -andy

digg this article

CORRECTION: Peter Suber of Open Access News has posted a clarification about what I wrote:

The bill applies to the peer-reviewed version of the author's manuscript, not to the published version, which may include extensive copy editing and mark-up. The bill's mandate applies to grantees or authors, not to publishers. Publishers are not forced to release anything, merely to coexist with free copies of different versions of a subset of the articles they publish.

This may seem like a fine point, but it has two important consequences. First, it's another reason to think that the policy will not, in fact, harm journal subscriptions. Researchers will still want access to the published versions and therefore libraries will still feel demand to subscribe. Second, it shows that the policy does not regulate publishers but only grantees, with whom the funding agencies have a contractual relationship. The FRPAA is too new for many publishers to have weighed in on yet. But in the debate over the NIH policy (different in many ways but similar in this respect), many publishers inaccurately claimed that it was an attempt to regulate publishing.

Thanks to Peter for setting the record straight. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 3:53 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 5, 2006

Subbiah Arunachalam on India's Open Access Movement

Blogger Richard Poynder has a great interview with Digital Divide Network member Subbiah Arunachalam about the Open Access movement in India, specifically focusing on open access to scientific research. It's an important read for anyone interested in the future of open access journals like Public Library of Science, particularly in an Indian context. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 8:07 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 3, 2006

Web Inventor Weighs in on Network Neutrality

Sir Tim Berners Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, has just posted a blog entry in which he pushes for policymakers to protect network neutrality and not allow the Internet to be parceled into balkanized fiefdoms where access to content is determined by the telecom carriers.

When, seventeen years ago, I designed the Web, I did not have to ask anyone's permission. The new application rolled out over the existing Internet without modifying it. I tried then, and many people still work very hard still, to make the Web technology, in turn, a universal, neutral, platform. It must not discriminate against particular hardware, software, underlying network, language, culture, disability, or against particular types of data.

Anyone can build a new application on the Web, without asking me, or Vint Cerf, or their ISP, or their cable company, or their operating system provider, or their government, or their hardware vendor.

It is of the utmost importance that, if I connect to the Internet, and you connect to the Internet, that we can then run any Internet application we want, without discrimination as to who we are or what we are doing. We pay for connection to the Net as though it were a cloud which magically delivers our packets. We may pay for a higher or a lower quality of service. We may pay for a service which has the characteristics of being good for video, or quality audio. But we each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me....

...The Internet is increasingly becoming the dominant medium binding us. The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.

Let us protect the neutrality of the net.

For more on this looming threat against the Internet, visit SaveTheInternet.com. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 10:24 AM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 2, 2006

Mapping Municipal Broadband in the US

C|Net's municipal broadband map

C|NET now has a map of municipal broadband projects in the US. The map lets you mouse over a state and find out what current and proposed muni broadband projects are going on, or click a set of boxes to highlight all states with specific broadband activities. It will also show you which states have laws limiting municipal broadband.

It's a nice basic overview of the state of municipal broadband here in the US. I just wish it had more detail, such as links to individual municipal initiatives and the legislation - now that'd be really useful.... -andy

Posted by acarvin at 1:38 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

May 1, 2006

Quoted in the Austin American-Statesmen

The Austin American-Statesmen is running a story about the digital divide and featured a quote from me. The article discusses a world technology congress taking place in Austin, and contextualizes it by examining Internet access in a South African village.

Internet connections are virtually unheard of. In a place where many households run on about $160 a month with government support, the $650 a month Kgabo said the school needs to reconnect a reliable Internet link is hard to come by.

That lack of digital access "is representative of a much larger problem for a lot of countries where literacy is very low," said Andy Carvin, director of the Digital Divide Network, a global collection of activists and officials focused on extending access to technology.

"It's also very expensive," he said. "I have many African colleagues who spend hundreds of dollars a month to get access at home."

You can read the full article here -andy

Posted by acarvin at 9:58 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

April 22, 2006

Coalition to Launch "Save the Internet" Campaign for Network Neutrality

This Monday, a coalition of Internet activists from across the political spectrum will officially launch the Save the Internet Campaign to fight telecom companies that are trying to create a multi-tiered Internet, where lower-income customers have less access to content and bandwidth than higher-paying customers. Quoting their new website:

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Network neutrality prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work the best — based on who pays them the most. Your local library shouldn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your computer.

Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn't speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.

This isn't just speculation — we've already seen what happens elsewhere when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Last year, Canada's version of AT&T — Telus— blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating. And Shaw, a major Canadian cable TV company, charges an extra $10 a month to subscribers who dare to use a competing Internet telephone service.

Congress thinks they can sell out and the public will never know. The SavetheInternet.Com Coalition is proving them wrong.

Founding coalition members:

Professor Lawrence Lessig — Stanford
Professor Timothy Wu — Columbia
Free Press — Coalition Coordinator
Gun Owners of America
Craig Newmark — Craigslist.com Founder
Professor Glenn Reynolds — aka blogger Instapundit
MoveOn.org Civic Action
Consumers Union
American Library Association
Consumer Federation of America
Public Knowledge
Common Cause
U.S. PIRG
Center for Digital Democracy
Association of Research Libraries
The Service Roundtable — small business network
Afro-Netizen
Loyola University Chicago, Department of Communications
Educause
New Organizing Institute
Covenant College
Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project
Association for Community Networking
Amazing Kids
CCTV Center for Media and Democracy
Alliance for Community Media
Professor Susan Crawford
Center for Creative Voices in Media
Community Technology Centers
FreeNetworks.org
Media Access Project
Media Alliance
The Agonist
NYC Wireless
AcornActive Media Foundation
Californians Against Waste
Chicago Media Action
CUWiN
National Video Resources
Illinois Community Technology Coalition
Ohio Community Computing Network
Peacefire
Quicksilver Communications

To get involved, visit the website and let Congress know how you feel about the issue. -andy

Posted by acarvin at 1:26 PM

Listen to a computer-generated podcast of this article

Network Neutrality: Perspectives from Developed and Developing Nations

Live from the Access to Knowledge (A2K) conference, Yale; Moderated by Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Speakers:

Susan Crawford, Cardozo Law Center
Michael Geist, University of Ottawa
Caio Pereira, FGV, Sao Paolo
Seán Ó Siochrú, Nexus/CRIS Campaign

Mike Godwin's intro:

To what extent is network neutrality a missing piece to the a2k discussion? Telecom policy often doesn't get talked about; instead it's IP discussions.

Technologies of freedom by Ithiel De Sola Pool predicted how computer networks would be central to freedom and democracy. In the US, you have freedom of speech and freedom of the press - the govt doesn't discriminate against content. There's also common carriage - the telecom carriers not discriminating against content. If Pool were still alive, I think he'd also identify a third principal - network neutrality.

Neutrality as to applications - allowing everyone, whether you're a company or an individual, to develop and run any type of application that leads to the creation and dissemination of knowledge. To do this, you need equal access to telecom infrastructure.

There's almost no distinction between the north and south regarding network neutrality - there's no settled paradigm yet. There is a debate going on, though not everyone's sure what they're debating about. The division is between those who want a simple, open, neutral network, and those who believe telecom providers need greater financial incentive to innovate, so they should be allowed to tier services and discriminate towards more profitable content.

Michael Geist:

Are all bits equal? Equal treatment of bits so that the market determines winners without limitation of access. Often called the end-to-end (e2e) principle. Non interference allows for innovation at the edges and mitigates the limited competition for consumer high speed access.

The two-tiered internet and VoIP. Shaw charging at $10 premium surcharge; videoton calls Skype a parasite; Madison River ordered by FCC to stop blocking competing VoIP services; Panama and Egypt blocking VoIP to maintain monopolies. (and others, too!)

Content blocked: Telus blocked Voices for Change website in July - it was a union site. Additional 600 sites blocked because they blocked the IP address hosting all of them; full communities lose access to sites. If you ask telco lawyers, no one new where the state of the law was, but Telus was entitled to take steps to block content. This has led to a major backlash.

Traffic shaping: Rogers Cable acknowledged that it prioritizes some content and applications over others; they get more bandwidth. Lower prioritization to file sharing, podcasting, video blogging.

Public vs. private internet: Verizon's FIOS service delivers high def tv plus web content for those people willing to pay. Everyone else gets slower public Internet. They have exclusive deals with companies like Disney and EA Sports. They're proud of these deals but they're open only to those who can afford to pay for them, creating a new digital divide.

Website premiums (access tiering). BellSouth speculates about charging sites to access their customers or prioritizing some sites over others. Verizon raises similar noise about two-tiered Internet.

Policy Questions:

- Legal protection from Internet tiering?
- Is tiering even needed for network buildout?
- Is this a north-south issue?

From a legal protection perspective, customer tiering exists today - dialup, broadband, wireless, etc. Access tiering raises serious competition and innovation issues.

Canadian telecom policy review panel:

Called for the right of Canadians to access content of their choice and online applications by means of all public telecommunications providers.

Incentives: there's lots of rhetoric, but little evidence that tiering needed for network builds. Technical costs may outweight benefits from some potential actions. Raises issue of municipal and public networks to ensure greater access and competition.

North v. South: Common issue. Developing countries may be impacted more, since VoIP offers tremendous opportunity there.

Susan Crawford:

This is almost like a religious conflict; two sides that barely even know how to communicate with each other without getting angry.

The Bellhead perspective: hardware and software are intertwined; network optimized for particular service; Internet is the last mile; carrier gets paid for the communications it carries; Internet doesn't work because there's no guarantee of service; services keep us safe - close relations with law enforcement.

The Nethead perspective: Network delivers packets; it's independent of applications. The best network is a dumb network, with endpoints doing all the work. Security becomes the responsibility of the users. The internet is all about standards and relationships.

The conflict between these philosophies is like the conflict between evolution and intelligent design. Totally different world views.

VoIP is now 3.5% of phone usage in the US, or nearly four million households, as of January 2006. The cost of phone service is going down to zero. Telcos become content providers to survive.

John Horrigan: 45 percent of Internet users say they use the Net to make major life decisions - illnesses, education, etc.

In the US, we have policy that is deeply political, deeply shortsighted, and driven by incumbents of various kinds.

BrandX - cable deregulated. DSL order - also deregulated.

Whitacre: How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them.... Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"

Telcos say we need quality of service guarantees to fix a broken internet. We need to ID packets and monetize the last mile to recoup investment. No other network operates neutrally, so why should we? If it becomes a monopoly, deal with it then, but don't tell us in advance how to build our network. That's un-American.

What passes for broadband in the US is "the slowest, most expensive and least reliable in the developed world," says Thomas Bleha in Foreign Affairs.

A developing nations issue. What do you do with an incumbent telco? Lay your own fiber, and work around the incumbent, like India's Andhra Pradesh or Amsterdam; try a microinvestment strategy.

What to do with bandwidth issues? She was told while visiting England: "Only sending email, so quality of service controls make sense for access to other applications." What are you going to do, prevent poor people from accessing movies?

The mobile Internet: the real opportunity. That's where we're gonna see enormous use; tiny screens will be where it takes place, not desktops.

Threats: Telecom policy becoming all communications policy; choice of viewpoint becomes critical; the ability to attach devices without permission, launch apps without permission, etc.

The Bellheads are seeking new laws, new asymmetry of information.

"This is an improper use of Internet technology."

Caio Pereira:

Net Neutrality from a Brazilian perspective, a middle-income developing country.

In developing countries, demand is lower, lots of concentration.

Consequences:

In an a2k framework, net neutrality should be a goal for developing countries. Tradeoffs should be taken seriously - they're often context specific. There needs to be transparency about bandwidth management in a context of scarcity, and detailed discussions about different types of discrimination and their impact on access to knowledge.

In Brazil:

Connectivity over the wires
- stagnation of fixed switched telephony - 40 mil lines
- slow growth of wired broadband access, concentrated in dsl rather than cable
Connectivity over the airwaves

The growth of fixed lines is stagnant, while mobile phones is up to 90 million lines - a major explosion

Around 3.5 mil cable subscribes - stagnant since 2000. But 90% of households have broadcast.

Around 3.5 mil broadband connections, mostly DSL.

Key networks to expand access: mobile networks, DTV transition. One key issue is net neutrality - walled gardens in mobile networks, while DTV is still strictly controlled by broadcasters. The political economy is behind access through these networks.

Seán Ó Siochrú on lowcost bandwidth for poor communities:

The principles underlying net neutrality are important, but they bare little relevance to the realities of developing countries.

We should talk either about net neutrality in rich countries or access to low-cost bandwidth in poor countries. But not both. The south is not on the same trajectory.

ICTs in poor countries: Specific form of liberalization has failed poor communities. Problems: vertically integrated operators; gsm and cdma are too expensive; weak regulatory rules; rural bandwidth mainly from VSAT; Africa pays twice as much for data flows (coming and going); fiber, where it exists, is underused.

International bandwidth. The sorry experience of the SAT3 trunk cable in West Africa. Owners are trying to protect their own interests, so there's been little impact on bandwidth costs. Some have switched back to VSAT because it's gotten so bad. Will the EASSy trunk cable be the same in east Africa? It's also owned by incumbent operators, so it might lead to the same failed outcome. But they're making lots of promises since they're now laying the cable, and APC and I