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)

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)

I know the FCC is getting a lot of letters right now. But I hope they put this one  at the top of their stack.

Broadband deployment and adoption are said to be the primary focus of the National Broadband Plan that the FCC will unveil next month.  However in recent weeks, attention has been focused on net neutrality. The six principles set forth by the FCC are worthy of discussion.  As I’ve mentioned before, the two major factions — content providers, like Google, and the major phone and cable companies — both raise legitimate concerns of access and cost.  But I question whether this is the discussion to have at this time.  If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times, we’ve got to get people online and using the technology before we start creating additional reasons to keep them offline.

As Pew reported last year, broadband adoption rates for minorities are increasing, but nowhere near the pace of Whites.  Wireless adoption in minority communities has outpaced that of Whites, but opportunities to start a business from a handheld device are limited. It is no secret that most new businesses start in the garages and spare rooms of our homes.  If we want to truly experience the transformative power of broadband in expanding opportunity for entering the market for minorities, the focus must remain on methods to increase broadband adoption in the home.  

Below is a video where I explain my take the issue and more importantly why entrepreneurship increase among minorities is crucial.

A month ago, Free Press claimed it was “troubled by some of the heated rhetoric that has gone back and forth over whether civil rights organizations should be for or against Network Neutrality. In general, this debate has too often descended into outrageous allegations of all kinds.” They added, “A commitment to civility will benefit everyone involved.” They urged everyone to avoid “outrageous allegations” that “divide us along ethnic and racial lines.”

I confess: about that same time, I was in the process of strongly challenging Free Press for its offensive claims that minorities who disagreed with them were dupes of big business. But I never posted it – because I agreed we needed a civil debate.

This issue is just too important to wallow in crazy claims and race-dividing rhetoric. At its root, all agree we need an open Internet, and that everyone – particularly consumers – benefits. But despite what Free Press claims, the openness of the Internet is not at risk. That is a smokescreen. Internet activity has and will continue to be guarded by the Four Internet Freedom principles set forth by the FCC. ( a fact that these outlets never mention those BTW), and ISPs are already prohibited from blocking, discriminating against, or deterring Internet users from accessing online content and applications of their choice. The Internet works wonderfully as it is, and in the very rare cases where an ISP breached a principle, corrective action was taken promptly. ISPs are on high alert not to repeat anything close to those one or two errors. What is at risk is the goal of 100% broadband and our need to ensure access by all children, families, small businesses, and voices.

Well, at least that was supposed to be the heart of the debate. I’m not going to repeat all of Free Press’ new outrageous claims, but its government relations manager days ago wrote that the policies that minorities (like me and many of you) are supporting would create a “segregated community.” They suggest minorities who work for AT&T, Verizon and others are unwittingly helping their employers erode “online rights of marginalized communities.”

Shame on Free Press, and shame on us if we allow such offensive and preposterous comments to ever go unchallenged. Free Press, please don’t backtrack on your appeal to civility and facts. Let’s respect our communities and consumers enough to give them knowledge and information, and let them decide where they stand – without your scare tactics and rhetoric. I could not be more sincere, and I’ll reach out to you off line to see how we can make this happen together.

I was excited to learn that the FCC is holding a field hearing on broadband access at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis.   It will be on Saturday, Dec. 5 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.  You can send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov for more information, and if you happen to be in the area, you can attend the meeting, as it is open for public attendance.

I can’t imagine a better backdrop for dialogue about digital inclusion and broadband equality than by hosting a forum at a location of such significance to America’s struggle towards civil rights.  Of course, the museum was once the Lorraine Motel, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was assassinated on April 4, 1968.   In support of striking sanitation workers, his remarks the previous day are commonly known as his “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech.   He focused on the need for economic justice and described how pleased he was to see some momentum in their efforts.  “Something is happening in Memphis, something is happening in our world,” Dr. King said.

Considering the movement afoot towards creating opportunities for Americans, particularly minority, low-income and underserved Americans, I don’t think anyone would doubt that today, Dr. King would have broadband access on his agenda for social and economic justice.  I suspect he would be more passionate than any of us, maybe even scolding some of us for not doing even more!  Our debate on broadband access is often a matter of tossing out economic statistics, research reports and intellectual reasoning. But the real discussion is about equal access to opportunity, how we must make sure we are never left out again and bringing back into focus how far we’ve come and how far we need to go.  Sometimes, we may just need a little more fire.  Dr. King’s speech in Memphis does that for me.  Here’s the link: http://www.afscme.org/about/1549.cfm