First, there is no reason for urgency. Nothing is broken, and the issue primarily is being stirred by people who say they fear what might happen in the future. Fear is a terrible foundation for decision making, especially when the decision is so important.

Second, the process continues to move forward. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered, and its best to pursue those in a deliberative, respectful climate. Pausing, turning the decibel level down, then moving ahead is a good commonsense approach.

Finally, it increases the hope of a consensus. It gets us past the mindset that there will be winners and losers, when we will all benefit from an open internet that is protected from abuse but done so in a way that doesn’t risk continued growth and adoption. Anyone who really cares about the future impact the Internet will have on our society can see that investing in more time to ensure clarity is worth the investment and that the opportunity is too great to do it any other way.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FCC asks for more feedback on net neutrality (macworld.com)

Navarrow Wright on WUFO from Navarrow Wright on Vimeo.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Navarrow Wright: Flipboard May Become the First Culturally Relevant Magazine (huffingtonpost.com)
• FCC asks for more feedback on net neutrality (macworld.com)
• 7 Ways to Save a Young Boy’s Life with Tech (ybpguide.com)

The Washington Post has always been one of the front runners of old media in race to ensure their content is available across multiple digital channels. I believe that the efforts they have made on the Washington Post.com and with the launch of the Root.com have set the standard for how other print outlets approach integrating the online channel into their business. They’ve also won a few Pulitzer’s, kept us informed  and made us understand the Beltway better.  With all that said, you have to believe Post’s owners and investors are deeply interested in being profitable and in making sure no ISP – or anyone else, for that matter – is manipulating access to their product.

So when the Washington Post calls the FCC’s attempt to regulate the Internet “a serious step backward,” you’ve got to take notice.      As the Post’s editorial says, the Internet is ”complex and evolving” and oversight must be flexible, and it must acknowledge that some rigid and detailed rules – like those first adopted generations ago – don’t make sense today.  “Establishing a clearly limited power to take action against anti-competitive violations, rather than encumbering this vital sector with detailed and prescriptive regulation, is the sensible approach.”

The article caught my eye because it’s saying what I’ve been saying for some time now. We are not talking about net nuetrality, we are talking about net “regulation” and if that regulation is made too broadly then innovation will suffer. We have to be clear with people about what’s really being debated and not cloud the issues with buzz words in attempts to incite emotions.  I agree with oversight but let’s not go down a path that will only slow progress and even more importantly adoption in the areas where it needs to happen the most.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Just say no to Ma Bell-era Net neutrality regulation (news.cnet.com)

A recent article in Investor’s Business Daily revealed a startling bias against the potential benefits of broadband, particularly for low-income and minority students.

According to Norm Alster, the article’s author,

[T]he latest research suggests that dumping technology on people actually widens the gap between haves and have-nots.  Kids who are given computers and high-speed Internet begin to slip in math, reading and English.  The impact is worst among the poor students who were supposed to gain the most…

While the study Alster references provides a troubling view about the impact of computers and broadband on our culture, it does not tell the whole story.  As John Horrigan, FCC Consumer Research Director, Omnimus Broadband Initiative noted:

[T]his finding was not as earth-shattering as some may have assumed.  In fact, it is consistent with the findings in the National Broadband Plan: connectivity and hardware matter, but computers and broadband access cannot replace parents, teachers and broader social support as critical inputs into student achievement.  Laptops in the home are not a silver bullet–digital literacy training for parents and teachers, appropriate content for online learning systems, and broader community digital literacy efforts are necessary to ensure children benefit from technology…instructional gains come about only if schools undertake new instructional approaches tethered to technology and if they adopt new practices to support the technology.

So there you have it.  There is no silver bullet.  And while a student may be given access to the implements of a modern economy, absent new methods of learning that compliment these tools, we cannot expect substantial educational gains to result from the mere presence of technology in the home.

What Alster fails to realize, however, is that the Internet is a part of almost every aspect of our lives, from healthcare to education and job creation and everything in between.  Anyone who looks around for a second knows this.   The people who are falling behind in all of these areas — typically minorities and people subsisting in the lowest income brackets — have either chosen not to, or are unable to, adopt broadband into their homes.

We live in an increasingly digital economy, and despite the result of the study described by Alster, broadbad is the single most viable option we have toward increasing positive economic impacts for people of color and for those who have been historically marginalized and underserved.  Were it not such a vital infrastructure for our nation’s recovery, success and prosperity, the Obama Administration likely would not have encouraged Congress to include $7 billion in broadband stimulus in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the FCC would not have gone to such great pains to create our country’s first National Broadband Plan.

While Alster may be personally biased against the substantial investments being made into broadband expansion and use in this country, his is not an attitude we can afford to adopt.  And in fact, it runs counter to the overwhelming evidence that broadband can and must be the critical infrastructure in an information economy – our increasingly digital society.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Broadband investment: Critical to the future or misplaced priority? (zdnet.com)
• FCC Reports Millions Lack Broadband Access (informationweek.com)
• Broadband Initiatives: Impact Will Depend on Wireless and Fixed Strategies (circleid.com)

In the NY times article it states:

“the fact that a greater percentage of African-Americans say lack of broadband access is a disadvantage. particularly for obtaining career information, “speaks to a recognition within the African-American community that digital connectivity is essential, even — and perhaps especially — during hard economic times.”

This recognition needs to be spread even further within the African American and Hispanic communities.  The current increase can not lead to complacency. The value  proposition in the areas of Job creation, education and Healthcare information can continue to bring more minorities online if we make sure it’s communicated. So the next time you hear or read something about the growth of broadband adoption among minorities just  say ” That’s great but there is still a ways to go!”

That’s how I feel after reading this report on Blackweb 2.0 that says only 1 percent of web start-ups are from African Americans. “Overall, African Americans are still underrepresented in both the tech and entrepreneurial sectors,” the story notes.   The research advised that “burgeoning black techpreneurs” might find a greater reception and investors for their ideas in New York’s Silicon Alley.  I have wrapped my career — and it has become my passion — around the hope that more young blacks will be motivated and inspired to take the leap.  Our tech landscape needs their talents, ideas and voices.

Motivated to do something about it?  More than ever. Stay tuned !!!

First, I encourage you to watch this video on CNET – http://cnettv.cnet.com/net-neutrality/9742-1_53-50091412.html?tag=mncol;2n .  You will see two experts do a superb job summarizing the Net Neutrality issue.   You may not agree with every point (I didn’t), but you will have a far better grasp of  the topic. I do agree with Maggie Reardon of CNET and author Larry Downes that the issue has been unnecessarily “politicized.”   There is no evidence  that ISPs might attempt to control content over their networks; in fact, there are tremendous disincentives in place to discourage and prevent that from happening.  The duo also a good job of outlining the proposal that Google and Verizon has offered toward a compromise.

Meanwhile, precisely while the CNET interview was taking place, there was a rally at Google’s headquarters by activists and their recruits to protest the Google/Verizon proposal.   This episode is described by a journalist embedded with the protesters  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/the-siege-of-google.ars,   It is obvious they were grandstanding, at least as well as 50 or so people could do.   Check out this, for example:

“We had a bunch of papers which had, like, talking points so that we could all be on the same page,” explained the net neutrality activist leaning over the front seat of our chartered bus. “But we can’t find them.” Laughter erupted from the rest of the vehicle. Nobody cared. It was Friday afternoon. And after all, this was San Francisco, where two or more people being on the same page about anything is a misdemeanor.

I write this blog post after a long week, and these two examples of discourse leave me wondering:  What if every ounce of energy, every creative brainstorm session, every dollar, every speech, every rally, every minute that has been devoted to the pseudo issue of Net Neutrality could instead have been aimed at the all-too real problem of broadband access in America’s inner cities, small towns, and low-income neighborhoods?  What if?

First, the explosion of tablet personal computers has Apple, Microsoft, Google and others trying to grow or protect market share — and that translates into more options, greater ease of use, more applications, and better pricing for consumers around the globe.   As this story, Tablet PCs: The coming Revolution, in Smart Data Collective points out, it has reached a point where tablets developed by the government of India are being sold there for only $35, and their hope is to bring that down to $10.   We haven’t hit that price point in the U.S. yet, but the immersion of tablets into the global mainstream bodes well for those who want to increase access to un-served and underserved households.

At the same time, you may have noticed the infusion of federal dollars to provide computers and internet access for thousands of people in Chicago, one of my favorite cities. Check out the story, Chicago gets $16 million to bridge digital divide.   Mayor Daley points out that it is all about opportunity and jobs.  Today, people preparing for the workforce who don’t know how to unleash the power of the PC and the internet will be left behind.   And our families, cities and nation cannot afford that.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/dont-block-mobile-path-onto-internet/1113659

There have been some studies that have shown the rapid adoption of mobile broadband by minorities.  While the hope is that they adopt wire-line broadband as well it is encouraging to see that mobile technology has allowed  them to get exposure to the benefits of broadband access. The article questions whether  the FCC recognizes this growth and how their current proposed net nuetrality rules could stifle this growth. The article drives home the point that i have been making for while , that the FCC should focus on fostering growth and adoption instead of bogging things down with regulations. Take a read and let me know your thoughts