Connect with us

Expert Opinion

Promoting the Use of the Internet by Seniors in Public Housing

LAKE FOREST, Ill., July 26, 2009 – Every public housing authority in the United States should apply for stimulus funding from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to set up a program to promote the benefits and use of the Internet for its senior housing residents. The goal should be to make the case for the practical benefits of broadband and the Internet sufficiently compelling so that seniors would want a computer and internet connection in their individual units.

Published

on

Editor’s Note: The following guest commentary appears by special invitation of BroadbandCensus.com. BroadbandCensus.com does not necessary endorse the views in the commentary, but invites officials, experts and individuals interested in the state of broadband to offer commentaries of their own. To offer a commentary, please e-mail commentary@broadbandcensus.com. Not all commentaries may be published.

The staff of BroadbandCensus.com has produced a four-page report on the essentials of the Broadband Initiative Program-Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Notice of Funds Availability, which is available for purchase for $25.00, at http://broadbandcensus.com/special-reports.

By Don Samuelson, Guest Commentary, BroadbandCensus.com

LAKE FOREST, Ill., July 26, 2009 – Every public housing authority in the United States should apply for stimulus funding from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to set up a program to promote the benefits and use of the Internet for its senior housing residents. The goal should be to make the case for the practical benefits of broadband and the Internet sufficiently compelling so that seniors would want a computer and internet connection in their individual units. The use of the Internet should be as valuable as a TV or a phone. This is a “value proposition” that remains to be made.

Accessing the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program for the Senior Market

Two of the statutory purposes of BTOP are to provide broadband education, awareness, training, access, equipment and support to vulnerable populations (e.g. residents of public housing), and to stimulate demand for broadband. An overview of “Sustainable Broadband Adoption” and the actual application can be found at: http://broadbandusa.sc.egov.usda.gov/presentations/SustainableAdoption.pdf and
http://broadbandusa.sc.egov.usda.gov/download_app.htm.

While there are 47 elements in the application, the key information to be provided involves 20 pages of unique project narrative covering: executive summary (2 pages), project purpose (2 pages), innovative approach (1 page), number and qualifications of instructors (1 page), awareness campaign (2 pages), impact evaluation (1 page), technical strategy (2 pages), management team resumes (1 page per person), organizational readiness (1 page), project timeline and challenges (2 pages), budget narrative (2 pages) and budget reasonableness (1 page). Further guidance on these topics can be found at “Grant Guidelines” for BTOP: www.broadbandusa.gov in Section C: Sustainable Adoption at pages 88 to 114.

The basic objective of “sustainable adoption” for public housing authorities is to increase the number of public housing residents using broadband and the Internet and to increase their use of the Internet on a sustained basis. The most obvious market to be served are the seniors currently living in public housing buildings. The core “market” could be easily extended to include seniors with vouchers, seniors on the waiting list, seniors using local senior centers, and seniors living in the census tracts where the senior building is located.

Since the purpose of the BTOP program is to increase the adoption and use by seniors of the Internet, a baseline will have to be established for the target markets. Demographic information is required in the application. There needs to be additional information collected – on an individual basis – on the current capacities of residents to use computers and the Internet. Do residents have an e-mail address? Do they have an internet connection? Do they have a personal computer? How are they currently using their internet connection? A base line of fluency and interests can be easily established, through a survey form. Good market research should be the start of program outreach.

The Determination of Customer Interest

Seniors are going to have to see practical value – to them – through the use of the Internet in order for them to get involved in a serious way. I’ve found that interest can be best generated by determining the current interests of seniors. How do they spend their time now? What are their interests? What are their problems? Are there ways that their current activities and interests can be enhanced through broadband and the Internet?

The goal is to demonstrate how current activities and interests can be made easier, faster and less costly through the use of the Internet. I’ve developed a formula for this: Buyer Satisfaction is a Function of Perceived Value times Frequency of Use.

In the senior computer learning centers I’ve operated in the past, the “hot buttons” of interest to seniors have been: (1) easier connections with children, grandchildren and the extended family; (2) online access to government resources and services; (3) online healthcare information and contacts; (4) social networking in areas of common interests; (5) the development of new skill, e.g. learning to type; online education/training; and (6) games and hobbies. The way to start is with one-on-one conversations to find out the interests of Senior A, and then consider how those interests could be advanced by the Internet. Then go through the same process with seniors B through Z. At the end of 26 interviews – easily done within a week – there would be a comprehensive collection of resident interests that could become the foundation for the Internet instructional programs. The skills to be developed would already be known to have relevance.

The Elements of the Building Learning Network and Conducting Outreach

The physical network to be developed will consist of a Computer Training Center, computing devices in the individual living units and internet connections to instructional materials, applications and storage. In the CTC there will be: (1) an internet connection; (2) an instructor’s station; (3) desktop devices, such as personal computers, refurbished PCs, or “thin clients.” The benefits of thin clients are related to initial purchasing costs, reduced maintenance costs and the simplicity of upgrading and adding software.

The CTC will have an electronic whiteboard, so that teaching/learning can be provided to an larger-sized audience of 24 to 30 people, than the four to eight that can actually sit in front of a computer in the center. The most important part of the network will be the devices with internet connections so that individual seniors can have continual access to broadband and the Internet, with the on-site CTC performing the functions of initial training and instruction in special applications. The bulk of the work will take place in the individual unit when seniors have concluded that the benefits of the Internet and broadband are increasingly indispensable to their needs and interests.

Initially, communications concerning internet benefits will be accomplished by flyers, white-board presentations, small group meetings and word-of-mouth. As more residents get on-line and as case-examples and testimonials are developed, an increasing amount of outreach can take place on-line, with enthusiastic support from children, grandchildren and friends who are thrilled to have mom or grandma online.

After initial steps are taken, the seniors can be directed to two four-week courses that
create a foundation for computer and internet literacy. The objective is to teach and certify the basics resulting in a “driver’s license” to navigate the information superhighway. The goal of the training is to develop the skills so that seniors can further their individual interests that prompted them to participate in the program in the first place. The first form of training is formal classroom instruction using the white board and computers. The second would involve open lab time with advanced seniors helping their colleagues. The third will take place in the individual units when the senior accepts the values of the computer, broadband and the Internet.

Some Thoughts on Infrastructure and Costs

The broadband connection to the building can be made to a local area network in the computer center, and through a combination of Ethernet and wireless connections throughout the building. Substantial savings in equipment acquisition and maintenance can be realized if “thin clients” are used in both the computer training center and in the individual units. The storage, computational power and software applications could be hosted in internet-accessible servers on-site or through a “cloud computing” system. The objective is to make access to the instructional tools and software applications available anywhere there is an internet browser connection – at any time and any place.

All of these considerations have to be developed into the technical plan outlined in the BTOP application. All of the specifications and program costs for hardware, software, connectivity and instruction have to be set out in the program budget and explained in detail in a budget narrative.

The goal of the BTOP sustainable adoption program is to make the value proposition sufficiently compelling that seniors will move from building-supported training to an internet-connected device in their units that are central to their lives.

Donald S. Samuelson has more than 30 years of experience in government-assisted housing and real estate development. He has a passion for applying broadband to provide solutions in the fields of education and training. E-mail him at DSSA310@aol.com, or contact him by phone at 847-420-1732.

Asia

Dae-Keun Cho: Demystifying Interconnection and Cost Recovery in South Korea

South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Advisor in Dae-Keun Cho, a member of the telecom, media and technology practice team at Lee & Ko.

South Korea is recognized as a leading broadband nation for network access, use and skills by the International Telecommunications Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

South Korea exports content and produces platforms which compete with leading tech platforms from the US and China. Yet few know and understand the important elements of South Korean broadband policy, particularly its unique interconnection and cost recovery regime.

For example, most Western observers mischaracterize the relationship between broadband providers and content providers as a termination regime. There is no such concept in the South Korean broadband market. Content providers which want to connect to a broadband network pay an “access fee” like any other user.

International policy observers are paying attention to the IP interconnection system of IP powerhouse Korea and the lawsuit between SK Broadband (SKB) and Netflix. There are two important subjects. The first is the history and major regulations relating to internet protocol interconnection in South Korea. Regulating IP interconnection between internet service providers is considered a rare case overseas, and I explain why the Korean government adopted such a policy and how the policy has been developed and what it has accomplished.

The second subject is the issues over network usage fees between ISPs and content providers and the pros and cons. The author discusses issues that came to the surface during the legal proceedings between SKB and Netflix in the form of questions and answers. The following issues were identified during the process.

First, what Korean ISPs demand from global big tech companies is an access fee, not a termination fee. The termination fee does not exist in the broadband market, only in the market between ISPs.

In South Korea, content providers only pay for access, not termination

For example, Netflix’s Open Connect Appliance is a content delivery network. To deliver its content to end users in Korea, Netflix must purchase connectivity from a Korean ISP. The dispute arises because Netflix refuses to pay this connectivity fee. Charging CPs in the sending party network pay method, as discussed in Europe, suggests that the CPs already paid access fees to the originating ISPs and should thus pay the termination fee for their traffic delivery to the terminating ISPs. However in Korea, it is only access fees that CPs (also CDNs) pay ISPs.

In South Korea, IP interconnection between content providers and internet service providers is subject to negotiation

Second, although the IP interconnection between Korean ISPs is included in regulations, transactions between CPs and ISPs are still subject to negotiation. In Korea, a CP (including CDN) is a purchaser which pays a fee to a telecommunications service provider called an ISP and purchases a public internet network connection service, because the CP’s legal status is a “user” under the Telecommunications Business Act. Currently, a CP negotiates with an ISP and signs a contract setting out connection conditions and rates.

Access fees do not violate net neutrality

South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes. The principle of net neutrality applies between the ISP and the consumer, e.g. the practice of blocking, throttling and paid prioritization (fast lane).

In South Korea, ISPs do not prioritize a specific CP’s traffic over other CP’s because they receive fees from the specific CP. To comply with the net neutrality principle, all ISPs in South Korea act on a first-in, first-out basis. That is, the ISP does not perform traffic management for specific CP traffic for various reasons (such as competition, money etc.). The Korean court did not accept the Netflix’s argument about net neutrality because SKB did not engage in traffic management.

There is no violation of net neutrality in the transaction between Netflix and SKB. There is no action by SKB to block or throttle the CP’s traffic (in this case, Netflix). In addition, SKB does not undertake any traffic management action to deliver the traffic of Netflix to the end user faster than other CPs in exchange for an additional fee from Netflix.

Therefore, the access fee that Korean ISPs request from CPs does not create a net neutrality problem.

Why the Korean model is not double billing

Korean law allows for access to broadband networks for all parties provided an access fee is paid. Foreign content providers incorrectly describe this as a double payment. That would mean that an end user is paying for the access of another party. There is no such notion. Each party pays for the requisite connectivity of the individual connection, nothing more. Each user pays for its own purpose, whether it is a human subscriber, a CP, or a CDN. No one user pays for the connectivity of another.

Dae-Keun Cho, PhD is is a member of the Telecom, Media and Technology practice team at Lee & Ko. He is a regulatory policy expert with more than 20 years of experience in telecommunications and ICT regulatory policies who also advises clients on online platform regulation policies, telecommunications competition policies, ICT user protection policies, and personal information protection. He earned a Ph.D. in Public Administration from the Graduate School of Public Administration in Seoul National University. This piece is reprinted with permission.

Request the FREE 58 page English language summary of Dr. Dae-Keun Cho’s book Nothing Is Free: An In-depth report to understand network usage disputes with Google and Netflix. Additionally see Strand Consult’s library of reports and research notes on the South Korea.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Continue Reading

Expert Opinion

Luke Lintz: The Dark Side of Banning TikTok on College Campuses

Campus TikTok bans could have negative consequences for students.

Published

on

The author of this expert opinion is Luke Lintz, co-owner of HighKey Enterprises LLC

In recent months, there have been growing concerns about the security of data shared on the popular social media app TikTok. As a result, a number of colleges and universities have decided to ban the app from their campuses.

While these bans may have been implemented with the intention of protecting students’ data, they could also have a number of negative consequences.

Banning TikTok on college campuses could also have a negative impact on the inter-accessibility of the student body. Many students use the app to connect with others who share their interests or come from similar backgrounds. For example, international students may use the app to connect with other students from their home countries, or students from underrepresented groups may use the app to connect with others who share similar experiences.

By denying them access to TikTok, colleges may be inadvertently limiting their students’ ability to form diverse and supportive communities. This can have a detrimental effect on the student experience, as students may feel isolated and disconnected from their peers. Additionally, it can also have a negative impact on the wider college community, as the ban may make it more difficult for students from different backgrounds to come together and collaborate.

Furthermore, by banning TikTok, colleges may also be missing out on the opportunity to promote diverse events on their campuses. The app is often used by students to share information about events, clubs and other activities that promote diversity and inclusivity. Without this platform, it may be more difficult for students to learn about these initiatives and for organizations to reach a wide audience.

Lastly, it’s important to note that banning TikTok on college campuses could also have a negative impact on the ability of college administrators to communicate with students. Many colleges and universities have started to use TikTok as a way to connect with students and share important information and updates. The popularity of TikTok makes it the perfect app for students to use to reach large, campus-wide audiences.

TikTok also offers a unique way for college administrators to connect with students in a more informal and engaging way. TikTok allows administrators to create videos that are fun, creative and relatable, which can help to build trust and to heighten interaction with students. Without this platform, it may be more difficult for administrators to establish this type of connection with students.

Banning TikTok from college campuses could have a number of negative consequences for students, including limiting their ability to form diverse and supportive communities, missing out on future opportunities and staying informed about what’s happening on campus. College administrators should consider the potential consequences before making a decision about banning TikTok from their campuses.

Luke Lintz is a successful businessman, entrepreneur and social media personality. Today, he is the co-owner of HighKey Enterprises LLC, which aims to revolutionize social media marketing. HighKey Enterprises is a highly rated company that has molded its global reputation by servicing high-profile clients that range from A-listers in the entertainment industry to the most successful one percent across the globe. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Continue Reading

Expert Opinion

Jessica Dine: Broadband Networks Are Doing Well, Time to Shift to Adoption Gap

There is a perennial policy debate over why the digital divide exists and what to do about it.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Jessica Dine, a research assistant for broadband policy at the ITIF

It turns out there are two digital divides in America. The first one is the familiar divide between those who have Internet subscriptions and those who don’t. Everyone agrees this is a persistent concern, with about 10 percent of the public lacking subscriptions at last count. But then we come to the second divide: There is a perennial policy debate over why the digital divide exists and what to do about it.

This second digital divide is once again on full display around the latest edition of the biennial Communications Marketplace Report from the Federal Communications Commission. Those who think that broadband should fundamentally be in the hands of the government will no doubt claim it shows America’s private-sector broadband system is a failure; we are a backward nation with inadequate service offerings that are too expensive for consumers and too profitable for providers. The solution to this, advocates say, is to weaken corporate providers and strengthen non-corporate alternatives, including government-run networks.

But the empirical evidence belies their claims. An evenhanded look at broadband data show that U.S. broadband infrastructure is not the problem; it’s a lack of adoption that’s causing the digital divide to persist.

Comprehensive data reveal that almost everyone in the United States is passed by fixed broadband matching the FCC’s 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload speed requirement. And the expansive coverage doesn’t end there — 94 percent of people are passed by networks at speeds of 100/10, and the majority of Americans have multiple providers at broadband speeds or higher. 4G wireless coverage is almost everywhere; 5G, still in its early stages, already covers the majority of the U.S. population at 93 percent and reaches competitively high speeds for most of the country. The first iteration of the long-awaited National Broadband Map confirms that deployment is strong. Modern broadband deployment in the United States outpaces coverage in the European Union and is competitive at the international level. And with the use of fixed-wireless and low-earth-orbit satellites continuing to grow, it’s only getting better.

As for prices, U.S. broadband has been shown to be relatively affordable. The ITU finds U.S. fixed broadband prices are just one percent of an average person’s income, proportionately lower than the prices charged in Japan and South Korea. While U.S. mobile prices are relatively higher in the rankings, they’re still significantly lower than one percent of the average income per person. Moreover, Americans are paying for high-speed, high-quality networks, as evidenced by the Ookla’s latest Speedtest Global Index, which put U.S. fixed network speeds in 6th place globally, above even digital frontrunners like South Korea and Denmark. By October 2022, U.S. fixed median download and upload speeds were each roughly seven times the FCC broadband benchmark.

Time to focus on what’s causing the digital divide to persist: Broadband adoption

But even though broadband deployment is already strong, the government has packaged billions of dollars for more to take place. It’s time to stop throwing money at deployment. It’s time to focus on what’s really causing the digital divide to persist, and that’s broadband adoption.

It’s one thing to have access to broadband service but another to “adopt” — to sign up for and purchase — that service. The United States has room for improvement when it comes to adoption. Ninety percent of households subscribe to some form of Internet connection — for context, that’s similar to broadband adoption in 10 EU countries according to Eurostat, and it’s nine percentage points behind the leader. Though U.S. adoption rates are not appallingly low, they still lag behind the country’s performance in deployment. In other words, a substantial percentage of Americans, given the opportunity to connect to the Internet, simply chooses not to.

While a simplistic policy solution would throw money at the problem to lower prices, that likely wouldn’t make a significant dent in the adoption rate. The U.S. Commerce Department’s Internet Use Survey finds, instead, that the main barrier to connectivity is a lack of interest, with 58 percent of respondents stating so. Meanwhile, price comes in distant second, with only 18 percent of respondents putting it down as their answer.

No matter how much money and effort policy makers put into closing the digital divide, they will never close it if they fail to target the true root cause. Pouring money into deployment under the misimpression that U.S. networks themselves are lacking or designing policies to regulate allegedly high U.S. prices and ramp up slow speeds — these are tactics that take scarce funds away from the more pressing challenge of adoption.

Jessica Dine is a research assistant for broadband policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. She has conducted research and written on closing the digital divide, the state of U.S. broadband, and how 5G can play a role in reducing environmental harm. She holds a B.A. in economics and philosophy from Grinnell College. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts
* = required field

Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending