roundtable: Equity, Universal Service, Wireless, and a Possible Solution
roundtable: Equity, Universal Service, Wireless, and a Possible Solution
Equity, Universal Service, Wireless, and a Possible Solution
W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Wed, 12 Jul 95 08:59:48 EDT
Message-Id: <9507121304.AA09435@a.cni.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 08:59:48 EDT
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: Equity, Universal Service, Wireless, and a Possible Solution
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>
The following "vision paper" was presented as the basis for our
MacArthur funded July 7th Workshop in Washington last Friday.
With the increased attention to wireless and the role of the FCC,
this should be a timely piece.
Comments and discussion are welcome, and will help shape the final
report due out in the fall.
Regards,
Curt
Curtiss Priest
<bmslib@mitvma.mit.edu>
Note: The findings presented here are tentative and preliminary. Kindly
share this in the same spirit.
Cost-effective Networking of Schools and
Schools and Homes
Interim Review Workshop
for
A Study Being Conducted by EPIE Institute and CITS
Funded by
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
July 7, 1995
8:45 AM - 2:00 PM
at
The Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC
Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE)
P. Kenneth Komoski, Executive Director
Center for Information, Technology & Society (CITS)
Dr. W. Curtiss Priest, Director
Background for Workshop Participants
In January 1995, the MacArthur Foundation provided EPIE Institute with
grant support to conduct a study of "Cost-Effective Technologies for
Networking Schools and Networking Schools and Homes." Since January,
EPIE and CITS have gathered information about the many ongoing efforts,
studies and analyses of school networking technologies and the paucity of
efforts addressing the technology of school-home networking.
Before completing the study, EPIE and CITS have looked forward to the
opportunity to conduct a workshop with as many as possible of those who
have generously provided input to our work and others who share interest
in the educational uses of electronic networking. At this workshop, we
are particularly interested in receiving reactions to the way in which we
are planning to structure our findings in our final report, as well as to
our organizing rationale. Also, because the networking technologies we
are studying are constantly changing and evolving -- almost daily -- we
want to spend much of the workshop hearing from those with insight into
this dynamic scene.
The format we have chosen for receiving this feedback -- and feedforward -
- is to begin by presenting the study's organizational rationale and
structure along with some of our preliminary findings -- in relation to
that rationale and structure. Following this introduction, the workshop
will take the form of a series of brief presentations from participants
who are requested to present relevant information and share insights that
will add to, or provide reactions to our structure and/or our preliminary
findings.
Structure and Rationale of the Study:
The general topic of cost-effective networking technologies for education
must be addressed at two levels.
Level One: In-School Networking -- This level is the networking of
schools, internally, and externally to the Internet. To date, it is this
in-school networking that has mainly defined "educational networking." As
such, cost-effective educational networking faces the task of networking
some eight million in-school computers both internally and externally
(usually defined as connectivity to the Internet) at costs that all
schools can afford. We face a formidable task to help provide some much-
needed help to the over 15,000 school boards and almost 100,000 school
principals who are now, or who soon will be, making decisions about this
first level of educational networking.
Level Two: School-Home Networking -- central to the rationale of this
study is that educational networking must be extended beyond schools, not
only to encompass extramural Internet connectivity, but to encompass
connectivity to the homes and communities of school-age learners.
The reason level-two networking is addressed as a "must-be-done," rather
than simply an "ought-to-be done" aspect of educational networking, is
being thrust upon the nation by a daily increase in the inequity of access
to learning opportunity. The gap occurs as those parents who can afford
to purchase a home computer and network connectivity for their children do
so at a growing rate: currently nearly 62 percent of families with incomes
of $75,000 or more own a home computer, while under seven percent of those
with incomes of under $10,000 have a home computer.
In the final report of this study we plan to include a cost-effectiveness
analysis and recommendations for action(s) that could lead to all of the
nation's schools being networked with all the homes of all students, not
just those whose parents can afford the costs of a home computer and
online connectivity. If our preliminary analysis and tentative
conclusions are confirmed by further analysis, we hope that our final
report will point the way to a practical means of helping to solve the
negative educational and social implications of the above statistics. It
is our hope that our analysis and recommendations may produce appropriate
cooperative activity of the part of federal, state, and business
leadership to see to it that children and parents living in the nation's
lowest income households have universal access to school-home, community
server, library, and NII connectivity.
Below, in very broad outline, is our preliminary analysis of the level-two
task, plus our tentative recommendations as to how universal access for
the families of all poor children might be achieved. We will appreciate
your reactions to this preliminary analysis. Your reactions will provide
a reality test for this analysis before we commit ourselves in the public
forum.
We begin with present reality as described in the recent report from the
National Center for Educational Statistics:
Funding is the major barrier most often cited [69 percent] in the
acquisition or use of advanced telecommunications in public
schools..... Other major barriers most often cited were lack of
equipment or poor equipment [50 percent] and too few access points
in the school building [47]. (NCES 95-731 p. 3)
An additional insight into why school-home (Level-two) networking is
particularly desirable for low-income households may be found in the
federal document The Other 91 Percent Q A supplemental Volume to the
National Assessment of the Chapter I Program (U.S. DOE, 1993). The volume
recognizes the importance of providing all students, and Chapter I
students in particular, with outside-of-school learning opportunities
beyond the nine percent of their time which is spent in school in the
course of a year.
In the face of these statistics, it would seem an impossible vision to
contemplate being able to find cost-effective technologies with which to:
(a) network all the nation's 1 million classrooms, in 100,000 local
schools with the 25 million homes of 40+ million students, including the 8
million households with Head Start and/or Chapter I youngsters, the 15
percent of low-income homes without telephones, and
(b) network all students' homes not just with their schools and
classrooms, but also with other learning and information resources, both
locally and nationally via a community-wide resource server with Internet
connectivity.
By approaching this vision systemically, and keeping cost-effectiveness as
its guiding principle, our analysis points to the following possible
means for transforming a seemingly impossible vision into a potentially
plausible reality.
In this vision the available cost-effective technologies are:
o 15 to 19 million used business computers available each year
for potential donation to schools and school-related
households (the Gartner Marketing Group, 1994). Cost:
acquisition/transportation costs of approximately $10 per
machine, with costs of cleaning and minor repairs done by
community volunteers and high school students trained by
other volunteers (this already happens in some communities).
o An unknown number of used government (federal, state, local)
computers that could also be donated (perhaps 1 million a
year) with attendant costs same as above.
o At present, the majority of these computers are 286s or XTs,
without graphics and internal modems. Currently, they can
be equipped with graphics/modem cards and mouse for about
$50 each (this is currently being done in some communities).
o Within a year or two, it is reasonable to project the
availability of used 386s or better from businesses and
government. Such machines will have graphics and a mouse,
and many will be equipped with modems, therefore, the above
$50 expenditure will no longer be necessary, making the
vision increasingly more cost-effective.
o Perhaps the most cost-effective means of achieving
connectivity in the nation's 1 million classrooms for
level-two networking with students' homes (especially the 15
percent of low-income homes without telephone connectivity)
is through a proposed "education class" wireless technology.
The cost of this is estimated at $100 per classroom and
student home (the details of such technology, its estimated
costs, and how those costs might be met, are discussed
below).
o Other possible cost-effective technologies include:
1. Use of cable modems where cable is available and where
there is the need for high bandwidth telecommunications (10
mbs or higher).
2. Developing "Toaster Nets" employing public domain
software and parent-volunteer wired schools
3. Lower cost peer-to-peer networking softwares and
utilization of existing wiring (such as for PA [public
address] systems in many schools)
4. Hybrid wired/wireless solutions
Summary of Vision
The educational value of level-two (school-home-community-plus Internet)
connectivity is not yet broadly appreciated. Aside from the issue of
equitable access to learning and information for low-SES students and
their families, it would have profound cost-effective benefits in terms of
improved home-school, parent-teacher communications, student access to
learning resources, student cooperative learning, and student awareness
and involvement in school and community. Because, in the course of a
year, students spend only 9 percent of their available time in school, the
other 91 percent (much of which is spent at home, or in the homes of
peers) of their time represents a major learning opportunity. As "home is
where the time is," and, as much of students' time at home (20 to 25
percent) is currently being spent passively viewing TV and/or playing
video games, interactive connectivity to school-based, community-based and
World Wide Web-based resources seems something worthy of working to
achieve for all learners -- especially when the economically more
fortunate among them are already benefiting from these connections.
Technological Approach
This study breaks technological ground in two major areas. First, it
looks at the available donated computers from businesses, not as a
supplemental approach to the problem but as a major solution for acquiring
networking computers for classrooms and homes.
Second, the study recognizes that ground-breaking firms such as Metricom
and FreeWave have demonstrated wireless communications at very low power
and in noisy channels that could provide the necessary bandwidth for both
schools and homes to be networked.
Donated Machines
We have found general resistance to the use of donated machines for two
reasons. One is the stigma associated with using cast-off equipment,
especially low-income families. Second, there is the belief that these
machines "have had their day" and are no longer useful.
In response to the first problem, we respond by saying that these machines
provide, especially the disadvantaged, "stepping stones" to "better"
machines. When we have worked with groups of low-income families that are
currently earning donated used machines (the process is addressed below),
we inform them that they can earn a better machine when they so want one
(by saving to purchase one) or by waiting a year to two for businesses to
cast off even higher performance machines.
In response to the second problem, we have systematically identified a set
of software applications that make older machines behave almost like more
expensive machines. Innovations such as RIPSCRIP (an innovative remote
graphical interface by TeleGraphix) make it possible to provide Internet
access via these machines without the use of, for example, Microsoft
Windows and requires much lower bandwidth than TCP/IP based protocols.
This makes it possible to employ 640K XT machines and not have to spend
the money for a machine with extended memory and other expensive features.
External Networking Delivery of Information versus CD-ROM Trade-Offs
It should be noted that we are concerned in this study with achieving
networking. There will also be the need for full multi-media CD-ROM based
computers which will cost considerable money, but these machines are not
required to achieve an "acceptable level" of networking. By "acceptable
level" of networking we mean a machine that can fully inform the user via
text and graphics of needed information, drawing upon the resources of
community servers, state networks, and other resources on the Internet.
Also, establishing the "acceptable level" of networking is a variable that
each school and home can and must address. Where email and text access to
databases fill the needs, there is much less demand for networking
bandwidth than when someone wants to fill the screen with high resolution,
256K color images, full high fidelity sound, or motion pictures.
We recognize that networking systems are part of a larger array of
machines that will fill needs for very high bandwidth and high resolution
display. Networking machines are to meet "real-time" needs. Too often
the lure of the Internet makes "real-time" provision of static information
seductive. With the availability of 5 and 10 gigabyte CD-ROMs by Toshiba
at the end of the year, the economics of providing high resolution
graphics will change dramatically toward using local storage. Also, the
forms of interaction over the Internet, such as the use of WWW, is
relatively fixed compared to the changes that can be attained using local
software as well as content. A CD-ROM with a newly designed user
interface need only be dropped in the machine. Changes to Mosaic or
Netscape must be installed via upgrades and must be backwards compatible
(i.e. the systems must work with users who have not upgraded their
client). Thus we anticipate that much of the technology-based classroom
teaching will employ high-end CD-ROM machines rather than Internet based
systems.
As we see it, much of the study's work basically comes down to "trade-off"
analysis. If schools and communities can acquire donated machines from
businesses that can be earned by low-income families who learn how to use
them, will the functionality be adequate? If there are sufficient numbers
of these machines, will this attract software producers to produce low-
end, RIPSCRIP compatible software? What kind of Internet access do we
want for children at home and at school in five years? And will a
monochrome, RIPSCRIP donated machine still be useful or impractical? Or,
will there be a new stream of higher-end donated machines available from
businesses soon enough to make monographic machines a non-issue? (In
making this assessment we are examining both graphic and non-graphical
forms of mosaic (World Wide Web), gopher interfaces, WAIS (Wide Area
Information Servers), and other Internet tools.)
Wireless
At the workshop we will examine a spectrum map of the "United States
Frequency Allocations: The Radio Spectrum" (U.S. DOC, NTIA, charted by
Omega Engineering, 1991).
Note that the breakthroughs by Metricom and FreeWave are in using a
relatively small and crowded portion of unlicensed spectrum -- 902-928
megahertz. Metricom provides wireless modems, which can be purchased for
just under $300 and that communicate to a transceiver up to 1/2 mile away.
Use of the transceiver costs from $20-$30 a month. The transceiver can
talk to other transceivers and pass digital communications to other
wireless modems, to local area networks, or to the Internet. The wireless
modems achieve speeds somewhat less than the highest speeds available by
dial-up phone lines (28.8 mbps).
FreeWave uses a less elegant networking technology, but has achieved
transmission rates and ranges that are distinctly higher than those of
Metricom. They can provide a throughput of 128K bps at distances up to 20
miles, and 9600 bps at distances of 60 miles. The 20 mile capability is
equivalent to a full telephone ISDN line without any monthly charges.
Unlike Metricom, they do not have lower cost wireless modems. Their
transceivers are $1250 each and are bought outright.
Most importantly, we are witnessing these speeds in the first few years of
the use of a relatively new technology: the combination of digital
compression, error-correction, collision detection, mapping and retention
of previously used frequencies, and frequency hopping. It is this new
technology that is revolutionizing wireless communications of the future.
What are the implications of collision detection and frequency hopping?
They are quite fantastic. They break away from the need to "assign
spectrum." A wireless modem can just look for a clear channel and send a
packet of data, and a return packet can be received. FCC rules require
that these devices change frequency regularly when used in the "unlicensed
spectrums" such as
902-928 mhz. The rules are under Part 15 of the Federal Code and, thus,
these transmissions are commonly referred to as Part 15 transmissions.
Metricom has already expressed concern about possible crowding in this
band and has petitioned the FCC to prohibit other classes of users from
the band. We appreciate both Metricom's and the FCC's presence at the
workshop, realizing that there is at the same time a balancing of
interests that the FCC must make with regard to competing uses.
Putting this aside, however, our MacArthur Foundation funded study sees a
much greater availability of spectrum for educational purposes. We call
this "invisible spectrum." As anyone with radio background and a map of
the spectrum allocation can see, there are vast areas of spectrum that go
under-utilized or not utilized day-after-day in every community across the
country. For example, Dr. Priest was a radio amateur, K1ZSQ, and employed
the amateur band from 50-54 mhz. At any time of the day about 98% of the
band is empty.
We approached a radio amateur club last month about how Metricom/ FreeWave
might be employed with their support. After two hours of discussion the
"hams" said: "Well, if you are essentially invisible, we don't care."
They couldn't see what they could do to help -- the technology was beyond
this particular group of hams and they didn't see the vision of creating a
new class of "amateur" user who would be using this technology. (Hams
have for some fifteen years been doing "packet radio" but at speeds of
only 1200 baud [4800 with compression] and with the interest of going
great distances using "repeaters"; they are essentially building their own
extremely low-speed Internet -- something that is becoming rapidly
obsolete.)
We have done analyses using Shannon's theorem to examine what the
telecommunications rates can be at various levels of "signal-to-noise."
What we have found is provocative and has profound implications for
education and beyond.
If we took the 98% of the 6 meter band (50-54 mhz) we have a theoretical
bandwidth of 6.7 mbps (that is megabits/second). With some degradation
this might be in the range of 3-5 mbps!
How large is this? It is somewhat smaller than an ethernet Local Area
Network (LAN) running at 10 mps, but not by a lot. So if we used the
"invisible spectrum" just in the 6 meter band we could put an entire
community in, say, a ten mile radius on one wireless LAN.
But let's look at the spectrum map some more. Television requires 6 mhz
of bandwidth per channel. That's 50% more bandwidth than the entire 6
meter band (for each channel). Notice on the spectrum map the amount of
bandwidth dedicated to television channels 14-69. This ranges from 470
mhz to 806 mhz -- 376 mhz in total. Now think about even the largest
metropolitan area. There are at most 10-15 UHF channels using this
spectrum. This means that at least 40 channels are empty. At 6 mhz per
channel, this is 240 mhz of "invisible spectrum" that could be used for
education and community purposes. This is 60 times the bandwidth of 6
meters and could run a wireless community LAN of an astounding 300 mbps!
There is another advantage to using "invisible spectrum" below 902 mhz As
the frequency drops, the ability for signals to pass through buildings
increases dramatically. FreeWave has told us that at 902 mhz they can
pass through a typical building to an antenna on the far side and still
attain an 8 mile range. At lower frequencies this range would be greater
AND the reliability and transmission rates would be much better if the
transceiver used, say 10 or 50 watts, instead of the 1 watt required by
Part 15. The use of pulse transmitters, designed in the 1940's for radar,
would support this level of power and not require a power source beyond
that of the computer's power supply.
So lower frequencies and higher power in essentially vacant areas of
spectrum could provide an enormous amount of community bandwidth!
In the final phase of our study we intend to further explore "invisible
spectrum." Are there other frequencies that could be employed? Are the
collision detection and "use mapping" technologies (memory within the
transceiver that keeps track of other uses of the same spectrum) developed
by Metricom sufficient to permit the FCC to allow the use of "invisible
spectrum"? What level of community and education services could, say, 300
mbps provide to each user? What congestion problems might there be? Are
there any frequencies of use that might cause health problems due to radio
transmissions?
Assuming that the answers to these questions are favorable, the nation
could move toward implementing the "last 10 miles" of the National
Information Infrastructure Looking at the prices of Metricom's wireless
modem at $300, at a typical ethernet transceiver card at $45, and a 14.4
kbps modem at $30, we estimate that a card could be made for any personal
computer for less than $100 in quantities of a million. A million is
small compared with 96 million households and the U.S. population somewhat
less than 300 million. Given the fact that:
(1). 35 - 57 million of those households already own at least one
computer
(2). that this number of computer-owning households is projected to
double in the next five years, and
(3). that even in five years most low-income houses will still lack
home computers
we think there is need for a national vision and strategy to assist these
homes to meet the level two networking needs described above.
Given the likely technical feasibility, how should we proceed? Should the
federal government issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) that Metricom,
FreeWave, Motorola, and others could bid on to develop the wireless card
(and the community transceiver for each locality)? This might cost from
$1-5 million. With the prototype in hand, FCC cooperation, 15-20 million
donated machines/year, and the buying power of schools, communities, and
individuals, we can see the wireless card being deployed in a few short
years. Schools, libraries, and homes would be tied together with much
greater ease than we imagined when we began our study. (Perhaps schools
could use Chapter I funds to provide every eligible student with a
wireless card for families' earned used business computers.)
Summary
We believe that such a national vision should have as one of its major
goals the networking of all low-income houses of Head Start and Chapter I
children using the most cost-effective technology possible. The vision
should include serious consideration of the wireless technology described
in our study, or any other technology that might become as cost-effective.
Hybrid solutions seem almost inevitable to us.
The technology should be built into used business/government computers
that may be earned by any low-income family willing to invest time and
effort in being trained to use the technology being earned. Once they
have learned the technology, they have earned the technology (see
"Eliminating the Virtual Ghetto," Komoski, 1995, available at
gopher.eff.org under "Groups and Organizations Supporting the Online
Community," under CITS). In the next five years American businesses and
government will cast off an estimated 100- million computers. Many of
these computers are being scrapped or sold over-seas. If only one out of
ten were donated for a national Learn-and-Earn Technology Program, all the
Head Start and Chapter 1 homes would have the opportunity to own a home
computer with community-wide and nationwide connectivity.
We note that we are providing a "safety-net" vision of networking. There
will be many households that can and will afford to use local access
providers using ordinary telephone lines, ISDN, or cable modems. These
households will, indeed, be able to receive full video with high-fidelity
sound, on demand. What we are envisioning is much like the provision of
universal service via telephone, only via a $100 PC card. There may be
occasional moments when this network cannot handle all the traffic and it
may be necessary to design the software to limit the number of megabit
transfers per hour per user, to allow full access by everyone. However we
believe that this wireless network can provide the basis that everyone has
been waiting for to "wire the nation" for education, learning and
community access.
_______________________________________________________________________________
| W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D., Director *********************** |
| Center for Information, Technology, & Society * Improving humanity * |
| * through technology * |
| 466 Pleasant Street *********************** |
| Melrose, MA 02176-4522 BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU |
| Voice: 617-662-4044 Gopher or WWW to our publications: |
| Fax: 617-662-6882 *** Gopher or WWW to our publications: gopher.eff.org |
| (under Groups & Organizations Supporting the Online Community, CITS) |
| WWW: http://www.eff.org, under Documents & File Archives, under Gopher |
_____________________________________________________________________________|
![[CNI Home Page]](/Images/home.gif)