As you know, we've been through the NTIA grant process and have not been =
all that happy with it. (We noticed the first year that instead of lots =
of small grants spread around the state -- as promised -- there were =
mostly big grants, south of the Westchester/NYC border.) =20
With that background, I thought I might share the following long =
commentary on the NTIA grant program. The author is a respected writer =
about the Internet who happens to live in Mercer County, NJ.
Regards,
Norm
----------
BEWARE! AN NTIA NII AWARD COULD BE COMING TO YOUR=20
BACKYARD THIS FALL
IF IT DOES NOT COME CONSIDER YOURSELF LUCKY
MercerNet -=20
A Case Study
Introduction: =20
We offer here a detailed case study of the MercerNet award and a=20
subsequent nine months of efforts on our part to shed light on the=20
processes underlying but one of several dozen grants made by=20
NTIA. These grants ostensibly further the public interest in=20
helping communities gain access to what the Clinton=20
administration loftily touts as National Information Infrastructure. =20
It is our contention that the process is so badly broken that the=20
granst may harm the long term interests of the communities to=20
which they come. We believe that NTIA needs to implement=20
criteria immediately for future grants that will first emphasize the=20
development of human resources necessary to use technology and=20
secondly of criteria that will ensure broad community control and=20
ownership of projects funded. We shall show why process that=20
underlies the reality of MercerNet has robbed the people of=20
Mercer County of likelihood of any substantial benefit from this=20
federal largesse. Indeed we shall demonstrate why we believe=20
that MercerNet will be harmful to the interests of most citizens of=20
Mercer County.
A Personal Evaluation of MercerNet
This will be a continuation of a story that we first wrote about last=20
October when we blasted the Commerce Department and the=20
decision of Laura Breeden at NTIA to approve a grant application=20
for Mercernet. At that time, in the Trenton Times an article=20
reported that Mercer County Community College, Princeton=20
Regional Schools, and Lawrenceville Schools in partnership with=20
Comcast had been awarded $750,000 of NTIA for an interactive=20
realtime video network for distance education in a county of=20
400,000 population that is about 15 by 20 miles in size. We went=20
rather ballistic and published a rather hot flame to two mail lists. =20
Within a day or two Laura Breeden, the NTIA Director, was=20
flaming back at us. By the time the dust settled, no one involved=20
with the project would return our calls. We found out, in the=20
meantime, that the project we had been following between March=20
and June of 1995 had been seriously revised by a Comcast grant=20
writer when the Princeton and Lawrenceville school systems=20
picked Comcast rather than Bell Atlantic as their technology=20
partner in June of 1995.
By September 20 1995 (the date of its final revision) the project=20
had been dressed in very liberal NII "do good" clothing. No longer=20
an effort to help the wealthy bedroom school districts give the=20
requisite number of advanced placement courses to their=20
students, it now involved bringing the Internet to the county's=20
high schools and libraries. And even more importantly, it focused=20
on the idea of the wealthy districts helping the poorer districts by=20
sharing resources. However, there was nothing in the proposal=20
that would lead anyone to believe that there would be anything=20
but a "trust me to do it sooner or later" approach by the grant=20
applicants to deliver what they promised to do in return for the=20
federal dollars. We also find it interesting that it was funded with=20
about three weeks of its final "revision" - a really rapid turn=20
around by a federal agency.
About a week after the beginning of the flame fest, when we=20
realized that the chances of speaking to the principal Investigators=20
were zero, we finally called Comcast. Dave Briedinger, who=20
headed Comcast's participation in the project, did talk with us and=20
gave us a copy of the proposal. Since then he has been almost our=20
only official source of entry into the project. Why? Because Peter=20
Thompson from Princeton (whom we have known personally for=20
over two years) Rebecca Gold from Lawrenceville and Tony=20
Bruzaitis from Mercer County Community College have remained=20
steadfast in their refusal to talk with us. Hence, except for one=20
meeting lasting a little over an hour with them in front of a dozen=20
other people, we have been unable to get their side of the story.
What is the "bottom line"? Why are we disgusted with the NTIA=20
award to MercerNet some nine months after it was initially=20
announced? Why do we still feel that if NTIA can't do better than=20
this, it and the Commerce Department in which it resides might as=20
well be abolished?
NTIA Grants -- Whose Interests Are Served?
The bottom line is that it is our opinion that the Clinton - Gore=20
Administration does not have any interest in using federal=20
funding of NII projects to empower the American people in the=20
communities in which they live. Quite the opposite. The federal=20
programs far too often tend to go to self-appointed technology=20
elites who quietly ally with large corporate interests to deliver=20
control of the technological future of their local communities into=20
the hands of the corporation. Furthermore, there is normally no=20
direct linkage between the financial interests of the local=20
community and the financial interests of the large corporations=20
and their shareholders who by and large live outside the the=20
affected local communities, or even in other parts of the world.
Far too often the community technology elites do their own thing=20
with the corporation. The community then finds that the=20
corporation has silently embedded itself in the process as the=20
technology advisor to the interests which the technology elite=20
represents. The project is implemented quietly in a secluded=20
corner with the elites and their corporate partners steadfastly=20
refusing to involve and inform the public or the community about=20
what is really happening.
Since October 1995 we have been watching these events unfold in=20
our own back yard in Mercer County, New Jersey. We are angry=20
and disgusted. We are writing about it with the hope that if the=20
NTIA administrators are unwilling or unable to take notice of the=20
short comings in their criteria for awards as demonstrated in=20
Mercer County, at least the reviewers of the new crop of proposals=20
might have a better idea of the questions that need to be raised=20
before they award a new round of grants. We would hope to see=20
grants that do not sell out local control of technology to large=20
corporate interests that use the federal largesse to funnel=20
economic resources away from local communities rather than set=20
this technology up as locally owned and controlled engines of=20
economic development within the community. Moreover, it is not=20
just a matter of where the dollars go but whose dollars we are=20
talking about. Remember that grass roots innovators like Dave=20
Hughes have shown again and again that the information age can=20
be brought into communities for a small fraction of the high-tech=20
high-cost programs of the IXCs, RBOCs and cable TV companies. In=20
a nutshell, the key issues underlying NTIA grants are ownership=20
and control of future technologies, and this in turn is determined=20
in each community by which technology is ultimately deployed.]
MercerNet Problems
What then are some of the problems with Mercernet?
1. The appearance of acceptance by a county's school system. =20
School districts were offered the opportunity to sign on to the=20
grant application with the contribution of five thousand dollars=20
per district in matching funds. This money would be used to pay=20
part of the salary of the MercerNet coordinator who would be=20
hired if the project were successful. This money is pocket change=20
for Mercer County districts which spend on the average $10,000 a=20
year to educate each pupil. Even so, we were told that Hamilton=20
township refused to sign on, but was given a free ride so that the=20
grant application could include all the county's high schools. =20
The superficiality of the endorsements should have been obvious=20
to any reviewer who looked carefully at the letters of=20
recommendation. There are nine letters of endorsement. Six of=20
the nine were almost verbatim duplicates. One was a paraphrase. =20
Two were original. One is left with the impression that the school=20
superintendents were given a form letter by the organizers. That=20
they did a perfunctory job of filling it out. Perhaps they were=20
applying for some federal money as though for a lottery. A few=20
minutes effort and maybe they would win a prize?
2. A paper only participant. The Invention Factory Science Center=20
(IFSC) is listed as a participant for both the video hook up and the=20
Internet. The IFSC is to be located in an abandoned factory=20
building in a decayed part of Trenton that is undergoing=20
rehabilitation. Unfortunately the IFSC existed only on paper a=20
year ago when the grant was written. An article in the Trenton=20
Times in June 1996 stated that the IFSC was expected to open its=20
doors sometime in 1997. The two year term of the MercerNet=20
grant will expire on September 30 1997. Nevermind, the grant=20
application still lists 10,000 visitors per year to the non-existent=20
Science Center as beneficiaries of the grant.
3. Non-uniform class periods. If a video system is to be used for=20
classes across school systems, one had better have class periods=20
that begin and end at the same time. The schools involved in=20
MercerNet do not have synchronized class periods. Most have=20
periods of less than one hour and bells that do not ring at the=20
same time. We have been told that students could not be excused=20
a few minutes early to go to a video class. State education=20
regulations would prohibit it. We are also told that some schools=20
are changing the times of their class periods and moving to longer=20
periods in September 1996, the second year of the grant.
4. No video course list. The school districts were expected to=20
release a list of projected video courses last March. We=20
understand that this list is now not expected before the fall.
5. Free first year use. Comcast magnanimously has offered to=20
give all sites free video and Internet access for the first year. =20
Unfortunately, this turns out to be worth very little. As the first=20
year of free access is about to begin, the organizers are only now=20
beginning to talk about training teachers this summer. Our own=20
research has shown that most teachers at most schools not only=20
have no experience with video links but also have no Internet=20
experience. Training was promised either via Ferdi Serim's OIT=20
program or through "an appropriate program for selected high=20
school teachers and librarians who will then act as trainers for the=20
others, including parents and volunteers." And "including non=20
profit agencies," we read in the next sentence.
We understand that some training is beginning now that school is=20
out. However, after having spent the last year talking to various=20
people in our school district, we clearly realized that teachers who=20
are trained will train others only if they are paid extra by their=20
school districts to do so. Furthermore, during the regular school=20
year such teacher trainers would generally not have the time=20
available from their schedules to do so. Indeed one of the=20
problems with MercerNet is that as part of the building of its=20
technology administrator's empires it has taken a top down=20
administrative approach. The administrators install the=20
equipment and appoint some teachers to use it. This is not the=20
direction in which to go for success.
In every successful K-12 internet implementation that we have=20
observed the direction is bottom up. A front line teacher=20
discovers the internet and this discovery changes the life of that=20
teacher. If the teacher is fortunate, he or she can find an=20
administrator who will empower the teacher to lead development=20
from the classroom level outward. Ferdi Serim is an example of=20
someone using precisely this dynamic and it is ironic that he=20
teaches in the Princeton Regional School System that has been,=20
along with Lawrenceville, the primary implementor of MercerNet. =20
However, from what we have been able to ascertain, MercerNet=20
has been an activity carried out quite independently of Ferdi. We=20
also want to make it very clearly that nothing in this article is=20
meant to be critical of him in any way.
6. The project coordinator. The project promised to hire a=20
coordinator which it called "critical to the success of MercerNet"=20
but said nothing about when. Susan Sullivan was not hired as=20
project coordinator until four months after the project began.
7. So-called public access. On page one of the proposal we read: =20
"MercerNet will make access to the Internet available in every=20
county high school and library. It will provide access not only for=20
educational purposes, but also make it available to the public in=20
particular to volunteer groups and non profit agencies that=20
provide public training education or assistance. By including=20
public sites MercerNet will make access to the internet by=20
**anyone** in Mercer County both much more available and much=20
more equitable."
But on page seven the application gives a very different picture: =20
"All Mercer County students teachers and parents will have access=20
to the internet at the county libraries." There is not one word=20
about the general public that pays the property taxes to keep the=20
schools and libraries open. We have since been told that libraries=20
will give the first class of people (students teachers and parents)=20
Internet access that includes email while the rest of us second=20
class citizens will have access to netscape web serfing. Period.
Since the school and library infrastructure of Mercer County is=20
paid for by property owners regardless of what class they fall=20
into, it would seem to us that the county library in particular=20
would be in a legally risky position if it tired to discriminate=20
between parents and non parents of Mercer County students.
8. Internet access as an afterthought. To us the Internet access is=20
the most important part of the project. We believe that it was=20
added in June 1995 when Comcast brought in the grant writer. =20
We had been talking to people who were aware of the project's=20
plans from March of 95 through early June. They were unaware=20
of internet access as an integral part of the project concept. =20
Indeed, since its inception five years ago, the project principals=20
have been trying annually to sell real time video to the county's=20
schools. Fortunately until Uncle Sam stepped into play the sugar=20
daddy the school boards had always rejected the project planners'=20
suggestions that they spend $50,000 for a video classroom alone. =20
Yet the grant application somewhat disengenuosly suggests that=20
June 1994 was the inception of the successful MercerNet planning=20
cycle.
On the other hand, during their one public meeting with us,=20
project participants steadfastly insisted that internet access had=20
ALWAYS been a part of the plan. If this is true, one must=20
conclude that they had gone for several years right up through=20
and concluding the successful grant application without=20
addressing the most fundamental policy decision of who would=20
have access to the Internet in Mercer County. (See point seven=20
above.)
9. Uncertain mechanism for resource sharing. The project calls=20
for sharing between have and have not districts and yet the=20
principals are saying that to get video courses you have to give=20
your own as a contribution back to the system. They are talking=20
about a banking system wherein you contribute before you can=20
take something out. What we have never seen an answered is the=20
question about what Trenton can contribute that will be of any=20
interest to Princeton or the other wealthy Mercer school districts=20
that will be using the video system to make sure their Ivy League=20
bound graduates have the requisite number of AP courses to save=20
their parents as much as possible on college tuition money.
In view of the refusal of the implementors to extend internet use=20
to new districts during the project's first year, while Internet use=20
spreads in the wealthy bedroom communities within MercerNet=20
during that same time, the argument can easily be made that=20
MercerNet will increase educational disparity within Mercer=20
County. For school districts like our own the year's free use that=20
comes in year two of the project is likely to mean experimentation=20
by a handful of teachers and not any wide spread adoption. We=20
complained privately to Comcast and the PIs about this at the end=20
of February. As we shall relate below one of the MercerNet=20
technologists took our private complaint and used it to publicly=20
discredit us in front of our local school technology committee.
10. The PIs have no time to use the Internet. This is most=20
inexcusable. It is caused by the fact that the project PI's all have=20
full time jobs with other responsibilities. (One wonder's why they=20
have taken on a new project to which they can not give adequate=20
attention?) They have told us they have no time to use the=20
Internet on a broad level to implement the project, even though=20
they all have access to the internet in their current positions. This=20
excuse regarding time has been their proffered reason for not=20
opening a mail list to discuss the project's implementation with=20
Mercer County residents who have to pay for the infrastructure=20
that keeps the technocrats employed.
Of course such access and open discussions would also subject the=20
implementation to challenges to Comcast's technical expertise and=20
guidance, a subject to which we shall return.
Meanwhile this situation has the ironic effect of preventing the=20
project coordinator Susan Sullivan (with whom we have (at her=20
initiative) spent several hours and whom we like and respect)=20
from being able to use electronic mail or conferencing with 5=20
different levels of administration with which she must deal in=20
each of ten different school districts. She is left to use phone, fax=20
and face to face meetings with these people. Why? Because the=20
project has tight deadlines to be met, and, as a result, there is no=20
time to train someone in each district to use dial up internet=20
accounts that are available to all the districts to help Susan out.
In short the techno-elite consisting of the three PIs of MercerNet=20
is not using the Internet democratically to seek acceptance of the=20
citizens of the county who will in turn be stuck with the bills that=20
it generates.
In other words, Clinton, Gore, and the bureaucrats of NTIA have=20
created a situation where due to the self serving nature of the=20
tightly knit school community and its contractor relationship with=20
Comcast, the school districts of Mercer County and, in all likelihood=20
the Mercer County Library system, will now have Comcast=20
installed as the primary source of information superhighway=20
technical expertise. In the absence of openness to other opinions,=20
such events are likely to greatly benefit Comcast and harm the=20
taxpayers of the county. (We shall explain why below.)
Thanks to NTIA and the MercerNet PIs it looks like we shall have=20
Comcast's technology view of the world, period. Comcast's=20
economic interests are thus self-serving and as such are=20
inherently opposed to those of the citizens of Mercer County. =20
Comcast portrays itself as the friend of Mercer County residents=20
with this project while at the same time Comcast is in protracted=20
licensure renewal disputes with two of the eight townships=20
represented by the MercerNet proposal.
Part Two: Efforts to=20
Ascertain the MercerNet Side of the Story
Beginning in November of last year we continued to try to find out=20
what MecerNet plans and objectives were. We wrote to Dr Tom=20
Sepe, President of Mercer County Community College, the entity to=20
which the grant was made. We asked for a meeting with Sepe=20
who never had the courtesy to even ask his secretary to call us=20
back. We talked with Doug Brower, the project coordinator for the=20
Hopewell School District, and sought his help in convincing Peter=20
Thompson to agree to an interview. We approached numerous=20
people in Princeton seeking the same interview. In December we=20
sent email to a mutual friend asking his intercession with=20
Thompson. We had published an interview with Thompson on=20
another subject in the spring of 1994, so Thompson himself had=20
had direct and satisfactory experience with our policy of allowing=20
him in advance of publication to review and correct in advance of=20
publication any misinterpretations of the interview. We also=20
offered Thompson a 90 day embargo on the publication of an=20
interview with him. In short, we bent over backwards to be=20
scrupulously fair. Nevertheless Thompson still refused to talk=20
with us.
In January we went back to Comcast's Dave Briedinger who told=20
us he had been trying to get Thompson to agree to talk. By early=20
February Dave held out the possibility of a meeting with the=20
MercerNet staff within the next 30 days. The meeting proved to=20
be exceedingly difficult to get and did not occur until April 19,=20
1996. We were ushered into what appears to be the monthly=20
planning meeting at Lawrenceville High School where we were=20
introduced to the project principals and their Comcast advisors=20
which included about a half dozen Comcast network engineers=20
who were very perplexed that we wanted people to be using a=20
system that they hadn't installed yet. (They simply didn't grasp=20
the concept that modem dial up to the Internet might be=20
something not under their control.) =20
A large chunk of the hour was used up by assertions that Internet=20
access was really always a part of their plans. The rest of the=20
time was occupied with our efforts to understand where operative=20
control of MercerNet would be vested and how and under what=20
conditions they would ever allow the taxpayers of Mercer County=20
access to their system. The next day we wrote the following=20
summary of the meeting which we sent to Dave Breidinger, the=20
three Pis and Susan Sullivan. We received no rebuttals to what=20
follows.
[In the following section of this article, the use of the editorial=20
"we" will be discontinued and replaced with a first person=20
perspective. This change is appropriate due to the author's=20
involvement as described herein.]
MercerNet: =20
Two Systems -=20
Separate and Unequal
APRIL 20; Control and ownership - those are the operative words=20
for Mercernet. I am sad to realize this with such finality. You are=20
either a part of the school system by virtue of employment or=20
long time friendship (Oberst & Gold) or you are an outsider. [Dan=20
Oberst a senior manager at the Princeton University Computer=20
Center we were told became a project adviser as the result of=20
having known Rebecca Gold the technology coordinator at=20
Lawrenceville for many years.] =20
Those who are not members of this elite might as well be citizens=20
of another universe. This despite the fact that we pay the salaries=20
for school system employees as well as the operating expenses of=20
the school system - which payment continues through inertia for=20
as long as we need a home to live in. =20
Look at the low passage of school budgets in Mercer county. That=20
should tell you some part of the story. Its us against you. And=20
voting down the budget is the only protest we can make. You=20
those other folk in that other universe called the school system,=20
by your own admission own Mercernet. [The PIs had pointed out=20
that ownership and control of MercerNet was vested in the school=20
superintendents of the participating school systems.] And YOU=20
will decide the terms on which the rest of us can approach it. You=20
could have used it to reach out to the rest of us, but you have=20
chosen not to. Meanwhile it will add a fresh layer of expense to=20
that other universe -- the school system for which we shall have=20
to pay as long as we live. Taxation without representation. School=20
net - not Mercer Net.
Within that other system, the school system, you, the technologists=20
have justified your operations by working very hard to bring in a=20
new project -- a new layer of technology. If school budgets are=20
pressured and need to be trimmed, you can then go to the=20
administrators and say: no don't trim here... We are a profit=20
center for the school system. We have gotten in more outside=20
grant money than it costs you to pay our salaries. Meanwhile I=20
am sure that you technologist's believe in your heart of hearts you=20
are doing nothing but good for the children and for your =20
communities. =20
Maybe eventually you will indeed do some good. Will it be the=20
kind of good that could have been done had you involved the=20
community outside the school system from the start? I doubt it. =20
In addition to those who must pay the bills you generate, there=20
are some citizens of that other universe who do know something=20
about the technology you are bringing in. Why not reach out and=20
share control?
Sadly the dynamic is totally the reverse. The implementors tell=20
me they are busy. They have full time jobs. They added=20
Mercernet to a schedule that was already FULL. They would not=20
use an internet mail list to discuss the implementation of=20
MercerNet. Period. Why? Because it is a known fact that internet=20
mail lists can generate large amounts of traffic. They work such=20
long weeks already that they simply do not have time to read=20
such traffic. Yet they are bringing the internet to mercer county. =20
Sorry but I think there is an inherent contradiction in these=20
previous two sentences.
I find one phrase of the Mercernet proposal especially=20
troublesome. The system will be available at all the public=20
libraries (for the support of which every payer of property tax=20
contributes $100 to 250 a year in addition to $2,000 to 5,000 per=20
year in school taxes). Yet the users will be students teachers and=20
parents - constituents of the school system. Did you merely=20
inadvertently disenfranchise the rest of us?
Yes, you have a complex task to put the infrastructure in place. =20
One that fairly cries out for the use of email and mail lists. And=20
the inner circle that is doing it and met with me is using email and=20
perhaps even a list. But no one else. Why? Because your=20
proposal was funded with a tight time line and that requires you=20
to get a lot of technical things implemented in a short time and=20
now there is simply has been no time to teach administrators or=20
superintendents, principals, board members, teachers or anyone=20
else how to use the internet. Why? Because your schedule is=20
complex and tight, you don't have time to bring to bear the very=20
tools that would help you build a constituency and work to=20
implement more effectively what you are doing? Vicious circle. =20
But one that Peter Thompson certainly has enough internet=20
experience to have foreseen when you rewrote the grant last year. =20
Sadly Peter apparently choose not to do so. Why, since for seven=20
months he was unwilling to set up a leisurely meeting with me, I=20
still have no clue.
Yesterday's meeting was informative. It was definitely better=20
than nothing. But to put me in front of approximately a dozen=20
people (three of whom I had meet before) for roughly 75 minutes=20
and to hope bridge satisfactorily the gap in world views involved=20
was absurd. Given three hours with Susan, Peter, Tony and=20
Rebecca perhaps. But I suppose this is not likely. Why not? =20
Because if it were the meeting that you gave me after seven=20
months would have been different than the normal monthly=20
meeting of your working group. Ownership and control. =20
You implied that you would open things up as soon as you had=20
infrastructure installed. Mention of reaching out to the technically=20
knowledgeable with the communities. And when I asked for=20
specifics, someone said well Gordon you are doing it already=20
through your local school technology committee!!! Sorry that deck=20
is stacked with parents who know very little about technology=20
and are essentially candy store shopping. I and one other are on=20
the roster as "citizen." Score: the school system 23 people, the=20
rest of us two. And Rebecca **misused** private email from me to=20
Peter in such a way that my earlier communication to you (Peter=20
and Dave) was effectively misrepresented in front of that entire=20
group. This was done in such a way that I had no opportunity to=20
respond to the group. My ability to be perceived by those people=20
as anything but a hostile outsider was effectively destroyed. I=20
made an offer to those people to show them the educational=20
resources of the internet at my home for an hour or more. Each=20
and everyone of them individually. In the month since that=20
meeting not one person there has taken me up on my offer.
MercerNet - another jewel in the crown of our county school=20
superintendents - but something that has no ownership, buy in or=20
support from the rest of us on whose backs the support of this=20
essentially alien system rests. A sad, sad day for Mercer county.
Part Three:=20
Technology Planning in Ewing Schools & Its=20
Relationship To=20
MercerNet
The Blind Go on a Trip to the Technology=20
Candy Store
Ewing Township, where I have been a homeowner for 20 years,=20
has over the past 3 years spent well over a million dollars on the=20
lease purchase of MAC Computers for its 3,000 student school=20
system. The money was spent on the basis of a pathetically weak=20
December 20 1993 report from the township school technology=20
committee. Readers can grasp the level of knowledge displayed=20
from the assertion in the report that the township needed fiber=20
optic backbones in all its school buildings to properly educate its=20
children! One small problem with this assumption is that even=20
Princeton Regional Schools, which offers hard wired internet=20
access to every computer in its system, does so with a coax=20
institutional CATV network!
The report called for the hiring of a Technology Coordinator to=20
implement effective use of the new system. The school board=20
claims than it had a person selected who turned down the job at=20
the last moment. Instead finding a full time replacement, the=20
young school superintendent went out and hired (at $85 an hour)=20
the full time K-8 technology coordinator from West Windsor=20
Plainsboro to coach Ewing teachers whom the administration had=20
selected to be computer teachers. He spent over 40 thousand=20
dollars on this consultant the first year and then, rather than hire=20
a permanent staff member for the district, spent another 27=20
thousand on the same consultant for the second year just past. =20
The Superintendent's idea seems to have been: buy the=20
equipment and let the teachers figure out what to do with it.
In the summer of 1995 I tried to find out whether anyone in the=20
township schools was interested in applying use of the computers=20
to the Internet. The answer was no. By the end of the summer I=20
had the Net Access pop in my basement up and running and had=20
especially good web access. In early September I the Ewing=20
School Superintendent came to my house twice for two two hour=20
sessions on internet use. I showed him K-12 web resources and=20
got his laptop connected to an internet dial up account. I had him=20
again for a third two hour session in March of this year. Pro bono=20
- not at $85 an hour.
Meanwhile he suggested that I try to contribute to the township's=20
technology policy by participating in the revived technology=20
planning committee. I agreed and attended two hours sessions in=20
December 96, and in February and March of 96. The experience=20
was an eye-opener. There were about 25 people. The eight=20
computer teachers and about 15 parents and two attendees=20
marked on the roster as "citizen" myself and one other person. =20
The meetings were chaired by Linda Walker a Ewing=20
Administrator with the title of "curriculum coordinator." The=20
computer teachers, interestingly enough, were not invited by the=20
administration and attended only because they had asked to do=20
so.
The sessions turned out to be questions and answers about the=20
district's prior computer purchases and then blue sky=20
brainstorming sessions about what the teachers and parents=20
would like to have for future purchases. One moment at the=20
March meeting was especially poignant when a teacher finally=20
said to Linda Walker: this costs MONEY. Can you tell us what we=20
really can afford? Linda's answer was no not really, but not to=20
worry, that was not the role of the committee. There hadn't been=20
money available in December of 1993 either but the School Board=20
had found away to make the purchases anyway. It was likely=20
that they would do so again!
Between December and March groups of parents and faculty went=20
on tours of other generally very wealthy school districts to find=20
out what these schools had bought in order to better understand=20
what they might want to ask Ewing taxpayers to support. The=20
taxpayers, we might add, would not be asked. We'd be told to buy=20
and buy on time with the next lease-purchase that could be slid=20
into the next budget or budgets. On interesting moment came as=20
the media teacher from the high school showed slides from=20
wealthy Hundterton County Central High School which had just=20
spent $250,000 on installing a fiber optic backbone into the=20
building.
To what purpose I asked? Well that what you need to do to bring=20
the information super highway to the kids was the answer. =20
Wrong I remarked and then gave a short lecture on how twisted=20
pair or coax would do just fine. Later Linda went over statements=20
of goals and objectives from the group's 1993 shopping=20
expedition. The planning process consisted of asking those in the=20
room whether they wanted to change the wording of the 1993=20
"plan" in anyway. The goal of fiber optic back bones in all Ewing=20
schools was read of and adopted. I objected and, after some=20
discussion, I believe the group agreed to change the goal to=20
"whatever media is sufficient to bring multi-media applications to=20
the student's desktop." Why was this important? With Comcast in=20
the drivers' seat thanks to MercerNet and the proposals talking=20
about extending the technologies to all schools, I can imagine that=20
it would not be long before Comcast would be trying to get the=20
local school board to pay for fiber runs from its backbone to the=20
middle and elementary schools. Never mind that wireless=20
technology is looking pretty good, and that Internet technology=20
changes faster than virtually any other, NTIA in its foolish use of=20
federal funds for MercerNet has delivered us all into the hands of=20
a CATV infrastructure.
My reason for committee participation was to try to get the people=20
involved to focus on the internet as the only reasonably cost=20
effective educational payback for the computers our district had=20
purchased. At the February meeting I had hoped to find out that=20
the computer teachers of Ewing would be eager to get involved=20
with Internet training so that they could take full advantage of=20
the year's free use offered by Comcast. Much to my dismay I saw=20
that of our eight teachers in the three thousand student district=20
responsible for the computer use, only one was enthusiastic about=20
the internet and one other mildly interested. Most still had no=20
concept than it was anything other than a wide-open public circus=20
haunted by pedophiles and pornography vendors.
Neutralized by a=20
MercerNet Principal=20
Investigator
I arrived home really disillusioned that MercerNet in its first two=20
years would be able to do anything meaningful or beneficial for=20
my school district and I wrote an impassioned private note to=20
Comcast's Briedinger and to Peter Thompson. No response. But=20
unbeknown to me one of the three Mercernet PIs took action=20
designed to end any chance of my having an impact in my local=20
school technology committee. My private email was faxed to=20
Linda Walker who, a month later stood up in front of the entire=20
committee and chastised a committee member who allegedly took=20
the private business of the committee and published it before the=20
entire Internet besmirching the reputation of several teachers=20
along the way.
It was quite obvious to every one in the room who Linda was=20
complaining about. When I then passed out a note with my name=20
and address and suggested that they needed to see the internet=20
first hand and that they would never again think about the=20
application of computers to K-12 education in the same way once=20
they had, the silence was palpable. I made an offer to show=20
everyone the k-12 resources of the internet privately and=20
individually from my own home. Just call and make an=20
appointment. Not surprisingly during the 12 weeks that have=20
passed since this incident no one called. It has been made quite=20
clear that I have nothing more to contribute to the school district's=20
shopping expedition.=20
The technologists behind MercerNet succeeded quite well in=20
killing off the alien influence that tried to invade their technology=20
turf. Of course with this article I am going public to my=20
subscribers and later to the Internet as a whole. But this is local=20
politics at a quite nasty level. And since it involves the=20
expenditure of public funds the bureaucrats of the local school=20
kingdom have no right to expect to continue to be allowed to=20
operate anonymously.
Comcast's Role
In most ways Comcast has acted far more professionally with me=20
than the MercerNet Principal Investigators. I want to thank Dave=20
Briedinger for generally putting up well with the hard times I=20
have given him. However, having said this I want to add a few=20
more remarks about what I have ascertained about Comcast's=20
internet expertise. As of June 28, 1996 Comcast's corporate=20
internet account is a $50 a month dial up store and forward email=20
account run by PSI out of its Troy New York NOC! At a shell=20
account internet prompt type whois comcast.com. For the third=20
largest cable TV company in the country and the company that=20
the Commerce Department has positioned in the technology=20
driver's seat for the public tax supported sector of Mercer County=20
this is not a good omen. =20
Now Breidinger has assured me that the technology approach=20
from Internet for Mercernet is under his control. He says he is=20
feeding T-1s from UUNET into Comcast's fiber network that=20
extends all the way from the New York suburbs to Philadelphia. =20
This seems to be a reasonable approach. There are, however,=20
many many questions about administration and technical=20
expertise behind the internet links that I have heard no answers=20
to. More troubling yet is the absence of any source of=20
independent technical expertise that the school superintendents=20
can weigh in contrast with Comcast's future advice. In my opinion=20
the process has been effectively rigged. And it is most definitely=20
not rigged in the interest of the citizens of Mercer County.
A Few National=20
Lessons
It is time that members of the Internet community and the press=20
took a serious look at what Clinton Administration policy makers=20
are doing in the name of the public interest. Human resources --=20
not technology resources -- are what the public interest in the US=20
demands. This can be a locally empowering technology, only, if=20
the corporations and politicians permit sound policies to be=20
pursued. The unholy alliance between local technocrats, the=20
funding power of federal government and the power of both of=20
these to sell out the interests of local citizens to far distant=20
corporations needs to be broken. The MercerNet story is=20
important to follow in detail because it is a case study of the=20
process being employed to reach national goals. As we have seen,=20
the process is badly mangled and will likely remain so, until and=20
unless, someone demands that NTIA incorporate accountability=20
criteria for its reviewers. Criteria, that ensure local citizen control =
over grant implementations, must be established and followed=20
through on before the receipt of an NTIA grant is likely to become=20
anything else than really bad news for a local community.
The Administration's national policies for the creation of an=20
information highway have promised equity and greater economic=20
opportunity for American communities. Unfortunately, in reality=20
these policies are going to be implemented at the local level where=20
the influence of politics and powerful corporations can readily be=20
felt. Does this case study of Mercer County and MercerNet tell us=20
something about where this information highway is really headed=20
and who is going to have access to it?
Meanwhile, in my own backyard, I agreed today to send full text=20
of this artcile to Susan Sullivan for comment. On April 19 the=20
MercerNet Principal Invetsigators had assured me that they=20
would have a web site open for informatin and comment about=20
MercerNet before the end of May. Today (June 28) Susan told me=20
that time to do this simply hadn't been found. But the website=20
was coming real soon now. When pressed she said within the next=20
30 days! Susan strikes me as a good and dedicated professional. =20
Its a shame that she has staked her immediate fortunes on this=20
particular misguided project.
**********************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200
(609) 882-2572 phone and fax Corporate $350=20
Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650
http://pobox.com/cook/ for new report: "Tracking Internet =
Infrastructure"
***********************************************************************