Program | Professional Development | EDUCAUSE Logout Manage Profile Contact EDUCAUSE Home Page Login Contact EDUCAUSE Home Page
Professional Development

Detailed Program Information

Broadband Pricing Group

Sunday, February 01, 2004
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. SESS01

A conference call bridge will be available for those unable join us in person. Call in number is 1-877-944-2300, access code 99203#.

Net@EDU Broadband Pricing Working Group
Winter Meeting
Tempe Mission Palms Hotel, Tempe Arizona
February 1, 2004

Sunday, February 1

7:30 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. - Continental Breakfast

8:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. - Strategic Planning Session

Broadband Pricing Working Group Brainstorming Session
EDUCAUSE, Washington, D.C.
January 16, 2004
In attendance: Gary Augustson (co-chair), Erv Blythe (co-chair), Tim Lance, Mark Luker, Mike Roberts, Garret Sern.


Purpose
Several members of the BPG steering committee, along with EDUCAUSE policy staff met at the EDUCAUSE office to strategize on the evolution of the BPG's mission and how we can best serve EDUCAUSE members and the broader higher education community. The BPG has shown an increased interest in helping shape federal/national broadband public policy. To this end, the purpose of this meeting was to draft a proposed action plan to enable the BPG to refocus its energies and resources to this endeavor. Reflecting this change in mission, we propose that the BPG change its official name to Broadband Policy Working Group.


Proposed Mission Statement
The Net@EDU Broadband Policy Working Group's primary mission is to influence federal/national broadband policy in order to best promote the education and research goals of higher education. A key component to this mission is educating the higher education constituency on the value of these policy issues and why they are critical for their interests.

The BPG believes there is a strong overlap of how national, public commodity broadband networks are designed and deployed with improving the capacity of the R&E network and meeting the need to connect lifelong learners to information and tools needed for professional development. The BPG recognizes many sectors of our society will benefit from a widely deployed affordable broadband network and seeks to collaborate with the appropriate individuals and organizations in promoting the development and deployment of a ubiquitous affordable broadband network.

Proposed New BPG Charter
 Below are some initial bullet points to assist the BPG in establishing a new charter:

  • Develop, recommend and promote policy positions on behalf of EDUCAUSE members that materially advance access to affordable and ubiquitous broadband services.


  • Articulate a comprehensive set of principles from which specific positions can be evolved to most effectively serve advocacy of higher education's needs and requirements for broadband technology.


  • Maintain active participation in federal, and in salient state and local broadband policy forums to ensure that higher education's needs are adequately represented.


  • Develop and maintain effective relationships with industry and federal partners to support the development and deployment of advanced broadband technology.


  • Continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the availability of competitively provided affordable broadband facilities products and services.


  • Seek legislative solutions that advance the public interest in the effective utilization of broadband technologies.


  • Ensure that the policy development process and resulting positions are adequately communicated to EDUCAUSE members and the broader community.


  • Identify and analyze emerging and experimental broadband technologies that serve research and education needs.


    • Proposed Fundamental Principles

    The following proposed macro-level principles are designed to guide the BPG in determining whether we should weigh-in on a particular policy issue and its relevance to the EDUCAUSE community:

  • Access to advanced communications services and capabilities is essential to individual and community learning and economic competitiveness.


  • Affordable access to advanced communications services and capabilities should be seen as a public good.


  • Current U.S. telecommunication services and capabilities are unnecessarily constrained by a legacy infrastructure based on obsolete technologies (eg analogue telephone and television services).


  • Progress in the deployment of public broadband services requires a new and streamlined regulatory structure based on sound economic and social concepts, and recognizing advantages inherent in new network technology.


  • Investment in advanced cyberinfrastructure is a vital component of scientific innovation that fosters economic growth and serves a variety of social needs.


  • Higher education's development and deployment of advanced networks is an essential driver of the commercialization of future networking products and services.



    • Current Public Policy Issues
    We identified several public policy issues under active consideration that will have implications for our community on a national scope, and where we may have realistically had an opportunity for constructive impact:

  • The Missouri Case on community/municipal network building. The BPG should consider addressing the potential policy issues that will certainly arise from the Supreme Court decision, expected this spring. Some questions the BPG may wish to address:

      - What is the public good/detriment to the pending Supreme Court decision?
      - What the free market won't produce, should municipalities be permitted to meet the public demand/need?
      - What is the requirement/need of communities to have access to advanced networks?
      - What will be the reaction of approaching policymakers from a "denying communities access to broadband networks" angle?


  • Voice Over IP - The FCC is expected to introduce an NRPM on how to classify VOIP services. EDUCAUSE has already been approached by consumer/disability groups to support defining VOIP as a telecommunications service, which would ensure VOIP providers must contribute to the universal service fund. The BPG should develop a position on how best to advance this alternative to the PSTN for the greatest public good, identifying both the advantages and problems. Special care should be taken that the evident "public good" elements of PSTN not be lost or even diminished. Some questions the BPG, along with the ICS Working Group, may wish to address:


      • - How should VOIP be defined/regulated (telecom vs. information svc)?
      - How should the safety and subsidy issues be addressed?
      - Where do we fit on the Vonage case?



  • Interaction with the National Science Foundation. The BPG should help NSF shape the future cyberinfrastructure needed for the bourgeoning research and education needs of all citizens. The BPG should emphasize that research on computer and networking infrastructure and systems, not just supercomputing, is an essential element of cyberinfrastructure. Some questions the BPG may wish to address:

      - Should the executive committee meet with CISE Director Peter Freeman by March to reintroduce the BPG? In this meeting we could emphasize our support for direct optical IP networking (eg NLR) and offer our support for Peter's broader mission.
      - Should the BPG seek to establish a working relationship with the House Science Basic Research Subcommittee staff? Legislation impacting the authorization of NSF funding often begins here.
      - Should the BPG carry out this effort understanding that we broadly support the government's support of basic research through NSF, so that our efforts are not advocating cyberinfrastructure over other programmatic areas, but rather offering our help in shaping the cyberinfrastructure itself?


  • Provide Administration/FCC/Congress with vision of "broadband" network. The BPG should identify and communicate with those federal agencies and congressional staff we believe will have an impact on broadband deployment issues. Potential agencies/groups include the FCC Internet Policy Working Group, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Department of Education's Office of Educational Technology. Some questions the BPG may wish to address:


    • - If private investment is not doing an adequate job of facilitating deployment, then where can/should the government weigh in? Should we convey a desire of accountability/responsibility that the public gets served properly?
    - Historically there are unanticipated benefits from deploying new technologies, and we expect no less from ubiquitous broadband. What specific examples can we provide policymakers on the benefits broadband services have to offer students, regardless of grade level, income and age? For example, broadband services will permit students at all levels to access information in a rich, media format, enhancing their learning experience. This is especially important for disable and lifelong learners who often are unable to participate in a traditional classroom setting.
    - Do citizens really need access to technology mediation to have access to education?

  • Emphasize to the Department of Homeland Security that a nation-wide public broadband infrastructure is an essential component in protecting and supporting the homeland during a crises. The BPG may wish to address:


      • - Should we educate appropriate DHS staff on higher education authentication projects (eg Shibboleth)
      - Should we seek to leverage our relationships to help with ensuring a secure broadband infrastructure? What do we mean by "secure"?


  • Work to ensure that our community works together in developing/promoting experimental/operational research networks (eg NLR) and explaining to federal policymakers the benefits to higher education and society at large.



    • Operational Issues

  • How do we take advantage of available resources? EDUCAUSE has extensive resources to help convey the BPG analysis and communications to the broader EDUCAUSE community.

  • Share with Kathleen Wallman and Georgetown CCT Students a list of public policy issues we wish to pursue and let them help us determine the pros or cons of dedicating resources to study them.

  • Proposed BPG Meeting Schedule for 2004
    Given the public policy focus, it makes sense (for now) to hold meetings in Washington, DC. This will make it easier to set up meetings with federal policymakers and their staffs. However, the dilemma is whether this places an undue burden on members living beyond the east coast.

    • Steering Committee Meeting, March 18-19 2004
    • Full BPG Member Forum, May 17-18, 2004 (just prior to the EDUCAUSE Policy Conference)
    • Steering Committee Meeting, August 10, 2004
    • Full BPG Member Forum, October (TBD)

    10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m. - Break

    10:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. - Strategic Planning Session

    12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. - Lunch

    1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. - Discussion on Reed Hundt's, "The Inevitability of Big Broadband"

    2:30 p.m. - 2:45 p.m. - Break

    2:45 p.m.- 4:00 p.m. - Update on Supreme Court Amicus Brief and State Legislation, Jim Baller, The Baller Herbst Law Group

    4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. - Super Bowl Party and Net@EDU Reception


    		•
     
    © Copyright 1999-2009 EDUCAUSE
      Unless otherwise noted, EDUCAUSE holds the copyright on all materials published by the association, whether in print or electronic form. In certain cases the work remains the intellectual property of the individual author(s) (see Special Circumstances). Content from conference speeches, presentations, blogs, wikis and feeds reflect the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of EDUCAUSE or its members.