This group was asked to brainstorm ideas around using Broadband capabilities to improve government transparency and services.

List of Attendees:

Shakira Ali — National Coalition Building Institute (Facilitator)
Lance Haver — Director of Consumer Affairs for Philadelphia
Ryan Hamilton — United Way of SEPA, Ecommunications Manager
Gretjen Clausing — Media activist working in independent media
Edmund Goppelt — Media & Democracy Coalition
Gwen Shaffer — Co-organizer of Philadelphia Digital Justice Campaign
Bryan Mercer — Media Mobilizing Project
Tara Murphy — Extensions Librarian, West Philadelphia
Ray Murphy — Online Organizer, Moveon.org etc
Aaron Couch — Software Developer, Advocate
Ed Schwartz — Institute for the Study of Civic Values / Philly Neighborhoods Online / Philly Blocks
Alix Gerz — Notetaker for the Free Library of Philadelphia

Comments on topics of opening session:

The facilitator directed the group to: “Think about what you heard and how it triggers your personal interest and where the government or government reform may have opportunity for intervention”.

It was noted that Open Source wasn’t mentioned at all, and the group discussed the fact that the City seemed to want to link people “geographically” and “regionally” when the point of the Web is to connect with others without being linked to a specific place. The group wondered whether or not the City had a good working understanding of Web 2.0 and how individuals truly use the Internet. It was later noted that the City is behind in its use of technology, though it was pointed out that some offices do use social networking.

A second discussion was launched when it was noted that the discussion was largely about individual accessing, but very little about content creation. It was noted that this piece is important in reforming government; there was no conversation about what people would be expressing in relationship to their experiences with our City government. The group also discussed being able to have direct contact with elected officials outside of going to their office or sending a form email. (i.e.: instant messaging)

The group also discussed the issue of transparency, noting that it is important to know what government is doing and how it is working to improve people’s lives, but that there are issues of security risk and invasion of privacy when a network is totally transparent. The group concluded that the goal of transparency was to give people the opportunity to live better lives, and to provide them with new opportunities.

Existing University networks was mentioned, and noted that it would be effective and cost-saving to have government open these networks up for wider community use.

General Summary of Workgroup Discussion:

The group began to focus on its primary issue when the idea of universality was brought up. One individual noted: “We don’t want people who have access to smart phones, etc, to have a greater say in our democracy. Whatever we think is good for government has to be good for all people. We all have to access public officials in the same way, not limited by where they live or by their economic situation. It’s been many years since we said you can’t vote if you don’t own a house. You shouldn’t only get a direct line to your council person only if you have a smart phone.”

The group debated whether or not most people have cell phones, and if it was worth abandoning the idea of creating a major broadband network if there wasn’t universal access. It was then noted that equity was a baseline in the morning’s meeting. The group eventually decided that open, universal access was key, because without it, a shadow government is created in that the government will operate online and “on paper,” when everyone should have the same access to the same system.

It was noted that while others had mentioned that the City wasn’t “up to speed” with its technology, that neither were users. Examples from the Free Library were given. The group decided that any initiatives should include education and training components, both for individuals and for people who would be in technology centers in the City (ie: libraries, recreation centers, etc).

The group also discussed the need for the City to recognize the literacy level of their users. It was suggested that a set of Web standards for the City of Philadelphia would be useful to new internet users. In addition, the group felt that the City should do away with usernames and passwords.

After lunch, the group discussed the “technical elite” and making sure to leverage their knowledge. This also included making whatever initiatives the City put forth “Open Access,” which again brought forth a discussion about the City’s outdated technological abilities. It was noted that many City forms only appear in pdf, which means users must have the ability to download and print large files, and then take them to the proper office. Instead, the City should use Web forms. The idea that the individuals processing these forms might not know how to deal with handling something other than a pdf print out again raised the issue of the necessity of training and education for City employees.

*The facilitator next asked the group to distill what they thought were the key points of the discussion:

1) After some discussion, the group agreed on universal access (and tying this into existing broadband networks to ease the cost/timeline)

2) It was noted that: “We need an ongoing dialogue with government about what needs to happen to improve it. The people in government aren’t connected in any meaningful way, so there is a fragmentation within government. We’ve done it outside of government (i.e.: a listserv of activists in a certain geographical area). You can’t create a better neighborhood unless the people who are sharing in all of the bettering enterprises are connected to each other in a meaningful way. That doesn’t exist. It has a chance to exist with technology but there doesn’t seem to be an interest anyway. The goal of using the internet to encourage citizen engagement and train people in connection and collaboration must be part of any serious strategy and if it’s not there, providing someone a free internet account doesn’t matter.”

a) Based on this, the group added the following to its goals: To reform government, we need to encourage the collaboration and community organizing that allows people to have more effective voices in expressing opinions and creating change.

*as a note of caution, it was mentioned that including information literacy and local media are critical to successful applications. She further noted that the vision for Philadelphia should be much broader than this application, as the government can’t fund the entire vision.

3) Training as a third goal was brought up, and the group agreed. Creation of original content, and ability to use existing content, is key to expressing opinions, giving feedback, and essentially reforming government.

Pressed for time, the group concluded its key recommendations were: universal access (with training and hardware) in order to not create a shadow government; communications and collaboration, which encompasses new media, building stronger communities; necessary training for new users and further training for staff in community institutions that already provide Web access; open source and Web standards/consistency piece.

Hot Topics:

The most hotly discussed topic was the need for universal access to broadband AND the hardware to make use of it. The group made it clear that this should be the basis from which all of their other ideas should be implemented, and that without this universal access, a true “reform of government” would be impossible.

Other key topics and important issues, as outlined above, was the training of individuals, not only to use software/hardware to access the Internet and information therein, but also to learn how to create content in order to become both “digitally” engaged in government and politics.

Outstanding Issues and Questions:

1) The group wondered if the City was indeed committed to ensuring broadband and hardware access for all.
2) The group wondered how the process would move forward and who all would have input in the grant application process.

This group was asked to generate ideas surrounding the use of Broadband technologies as related to public safety.

List of Attendees:

Thomas Economou — ET Industries
Tim O’Rouke
Jeff Cepul
Jen Wright — Free Library of Philadelphia
Shonique Mccall — Division of Technology
Harold Felt — DC
Everett Gillison — Deputy Mayor of Philadelphia
Jeff Friedman — Managing Director’s Office
Dan Merridith — New America Foundation
Felix James — Ready or Not
Val — EKG Associates
Derek Pew — Network Access Company and Boathouse Communications
Ted Enoch — Facilitator
Kathleen Dougherty — Notetaker, Free Library of Philadelphia

Comments on topics of opening session:

People responded positively to Everett Gillison’s goals to enhance public safety as laid out in the opening session. The need for a unified, interactive network that would provide information to everyone was endorsed.

General Summary of Workgroup Discussion:

As the discussion began, it became clear that it would be helpful to understand exactly what plans were already in place and background was provided. The current plan is for a centralized network that includes both wired and wireless communication, with a “clearinghouse.” It will provide segregated secure pathways for eight uses, including internet access and pcs for City. People need to creatively think how to make everything work better and help identify goals, such as directly accessing databases in the field, establishing mobile command stations, and distributing important info instantly to locations efficiently, and assume we have broadband access everywhere.

There was a recent effort to map all the existing fiber and infrastructure in the City, both public and private, and to identify the gaps.  This is a mesh network and while a lot exists, not all of it is accessible—there are dead zones and e-rate loops.  We can plan to incorporate high sites with big antennas to help blanket the City. 

Several members of the group identified a list of capabilities that the new network should provide, such as:  remote officials like fire, police etc. are all connected, so that the police could apply for warrants on the spot, send to judges and get a quick turn around, and they could communicate quickly through text messages; the fire department would have information on the buildings the are about to enter and real-time video of the progress of the fire as they are en route; public and private video cameras would be linked so that the police could track suspects (e.g., from Penn’s campus to a public site, crossing Drexel and then to 30th Street); and traffic lights and traffic flow could be monitored.

It was clarified that the City is currently designing an administration structure that would support a central dispatch center for all agencies – other cities like Chicago, New York, and DC all have this, with all calls going into the central dispatch and then triaged by one agency.  The Nutter Administration is committed to solving the interpretational problems that the police and others are facing.  The need to fix the problem with first responders is paramount. Then we should look at including L&I, PGW, and all City functions.  Public safety will benefit greatly if all this shared info. 

There was much discussion about the need to make this a two-way network not just internal, but also external.  A portion needs to be committed for information for the public, such as mass public alerts that could replace the need to go door-to-door, the ability for residents to text the police as crimes are in progress, and for neighborhood watch associations to interact with their local “beat” police.   Neighborhoods can work together on emergency plans.  The community interface portion is important. 

Commissioner Ramsey is a Web 2.0 fan – he wants to use social networking to change the conversation between neighborhood police and neighborhood town watch.  There should be immediate video surveillance for a small business owner or home owner— their cameras on network to increase public safety. 

There are many opportunities for a public system to support social needs.  For instance, people who are re-entering society from prison could be tracked and supported, making sure that they get the education they need, or take their medication, being proactive in oversight and support.  Training needs to be specific to individual but the ability to use the public network should exist.    

Hot Topics:

The need to eliminate the silos that now exist was reiterated several times – clearly a culture change, not just an infrastructure fix, is important if this is going to succeed.

It was stated that there are a lot of cool good things that could be done and done cheaply and the group was encouraged to focus on core public safety and creating reliable and dependable functions since lives depend on it and to seriously look at eliminating redundancies.    

The importance of including communication modes that already exist – libraries, recreation centers, hospitals, etc. was reiterated several times—the more people that are included the better. 

Access alone is not going to solve the problem – education to all sectors is critical (an example of an incident in a shopping mall in which store staff and security personal clearly didn’t know how to communication the information resonated with everyone).   Education and training are important, and not just to first responders, but to all the people who will be a part of the network. 

It is easier and more cost effective to solve a lot of problems.  Info aggregation tools and network tools may make it much easier to solve problem of interoperability on City level—we should look at the spectrum of assets and frequency with vendors and use economy of scale to buy units for everyone rather than each department handling its upgrades.

The question of how the community and remote workers access the network must be solved.  The backside of the proposal is resolving processes – this is about technologies and LANs, etc. —and these are decisions for the City.  These must be fixed before next steps can be achieved.  The goal of sustainable public safety could be the anchor tenant that pays for the node that can be used as a community access point.  There will need to be a City policy decision about charging for services - right of campus video, open to policy network— there are a lot of policy decisions. 

The opportunity is similar to a condo approach— look at what everyone brings on with back bone.  Once technological problems are fixed then we can move on to supporting social issues.

Outstanding Issues and Questions:

The issue of sustainability was reiterated many times. There needs to be a clear definition of the City’s role and what it would contribute to ensure sustainability. Money has to be committed; the anchor is currently the City; City can provide base and then it is critical that what the public piece will be must be decided. The City should not try and compete with third party providers; rather the City should support the economically disadvantaged through the structure that is created for the City needs – if you are already creating this network then the cost is relatively economical. Several ideas about sustainability and revenue generation were brought up. If the City builds the network, can it lease it to an incumbent and create a revenue stream? An example is traffic enforcement revenue.

The importance of establishing a process was discussed and it was suggested that there be follow-up meetings on topics:  (1) Corporations, college, etc. get together to talk about interfacing networks where people are comfortable.  It is critical to identify legal issues.  (2) Policy issues—what does the City want to do, what kind of interfaces, and what uses is it considering?  Is commercial use on the table? (3)  Field operations:  informing public, town watch, etc.  to figure out details and how we can do it. Then the next task would be to create a business model with budget, and possibly creating pilots.

There are policy elements in so many issues and these must be addressed.

This group was asked to consider how broadband technologies could contribute to economic development and job creation.

List of Attendees:
(list was passed around but may not include everyone)

Paul E. Wright — Micco World, Inc.
George Brunner — PA Convention Center
Joshua Breitbant — Open Technology Initiative
Barbara Allen — PWDC
David Cohen — Ben Franklin Tech
Agnes Ogletree — Digital Impact Group
James Baker — Xerox Corp and MCOT
Mark Seltzer — PIDC, The Navy Yard
EL Schwartz — ISCV
Mara Lipschutz — Metropolitan Career Center
Rob Stuart
Guillermo Lopez — Facilitator
Laura Bardwell — Notetaker, Free Library of Philadelphia

Comments on topics of opening session:

This was all done in small groups and not discussed when entire group reconvened.

General Summary of Workgroup Discussion:

At the beginning of the session, people were divided into small groups to discuss what they heard that morning, what they thought about those ideas, and what other ideas they had. Once returning to the larger group, most time was spent with members of each of the small groups reporting new ideas their group discussed. There was not much back and forth discussion among the whole group until the end of the session when participants were instructed to select from the entire list the four items with highest priority. The final ideas were more general but some common issues stressed were serving small business owners and entrepreneurs, as well as workforce development organizations and other vulnerable populations, ensuring that training for technology was included as part of the project, creating a way so that a variety of industries and organizations can share data and information, and working towards access to the internet as a right.

Expanded Flipchart Notes:

• Assistive technology for disabled—needs to be key physical and virtual
• Start with the end in mind (Job Fair that is well-attended and all jobs being offered are a result of the initiative)
• Centralize all the data of the City and allows the citizens to build applications out of it (ex. Apps for Democracy—already done by PDIC?)
• Regionalization—creating hubs of connectivity that extend into residential areas—thinking of a more regional than just City focus
• Transfer of knowledge—community engagement and workforce development, job training around the network—integrate into the actual construction process
• Navy Yard—PIDC—do pilot programs first there…small business or incubators…roll out broadband in pilot phase at Navy Yard and then launch elsewhere
• Training as to what is “in it for me”—not only how but why do “I” want to use the technology
• “Semantic Web”—step one getting info available and then available for reuse
• Free internet access to vulnerable populations, training and internet device included—small business owners and individuals in halfway homes
• Virtual neighborhoods—community can add to the space and can serve as a central space for them to get together—builds on Philadelphia as City of neighborhoods
• Training—not just on technology but on the use of technology with the trainers being people who are job recipients—not only use the technology but teaching others
• Closing the “feedback loop”—using online communities for training and also to see how people are using information and how interaction is happening—not only knowledge of what communities needs but also for businesses to use
• Social network aspect to phila.gov—community focused site-not just one way—collaborative
• City should be more proactive in terms of notifications…like major accident—Twitter or text, email or something (like many college campuses have instituted since Virginia Tech tragedy)—reply that the City does have Facebook and Twitter—another response is that there is no mechanism to get the info back into the City—social media data-mining
• Presence on every location where citizens of Philadelphia reside online—or maybe it isn’t the City but an entrepreneurial idea to disseminate and collect this information
• Share the City’s technology with everyone—share infrastructure with everyone—ex. What Knight did—wherever there is infrastructure expand that a block or two—so from police station to surrounding area (neighbors know that you can gain hotspot around any of these)
• Adopt universal access to technology as City standard—in order for something to happen you first need to adopt as your standard—always a question of how to pay but first acknowledge as a right—and then build into every plan or technology vision you create. Connectivity should be part of building code
• North Carolina creates business centers that they call tele-center—to invite tech-based companies tech oriented incubator / get rid of middle man idea: ex. farmer and restaurant collaboration—take community with a capability and find a market that is internet available. How could we support a community in finding a market for their wares that is different than what they normally do and make it internet connected. Philadelphia OIDC—example.—response—being able to commercialize different ideas—one of the barriers entrepreneurs face is knowing what is going on outside their little circle, knowing who is doing what and being able to collaborate is good for small business. Connecting the dots between technology and entrepreneurs. Not so much two organizations but serving two communities is how you will have the most impact.
• Using access to internet to support reentry from prisons—either having job training programs and creating continuity to traditional housing etc. someone can start to gain skills on internet and then when they get out they continue to have access and a portal
• Bring people out of their silos by getting people at different levels to talk and facilitate via the internet.
• Information needs to be captured and made available to large networks (like hospitals, universities, entrepreneurs, employment services, grant opportunities for non-profits).
• Mention of green plan—tie some of the program functionality that this project would support to integrate the green works agenda and goals for the City (things like making energy use real time—could help with sustainability)
• End point usage-combining television and internet into one thing—do something where both could be merged—lot of different use cases—go beyond convention Web uses

Hot Topics:

Overall everyone seemed to be in agreement about the general priorities.

Important Issues and Concerns:

The items presented to the full group:

• Enhancing small business by providing access to technology and infrastructure through training, government assistance, workforce development
• Creating universal access to regional data with data in open source format (universities, government, etc.)
• Develop partnerships with higher learning institutions and workforce development providers to develop online training opportunities for underserved communities (disabled, prison reentry)
• Universal access to technology as a right

Outstanding Issues and Questions:

Time ran out—none were raised.

This group was asked to generate ideas about how Broadband could improve the lives of Philadelphia's youth and vulnerable populations.

List of Attendees:

Erich Smith — Philadelphia OIC
Cynthia Douglas — Department of Recreation
Erica Brown — Department of Recreation
Jane Shull — Philadelphia Fight
Nijimie Dzurinko — Philadelphia Student Union
Hannah Sassaman — SEIU, Healthcare Pennsylvania
Siobhan Reardon — Free Library of Philadelphia
Bob Westall — School District of Philadelphia
Fran Newberg — School District of Philadelphia
Stuart Greenberg — Department of Recreation
Andrea Kenyon — College of Physicians of Philadelphia
Carol Rogers — Philadelphia Department of Public Health
Koby Murphy — Media Mobilizing Project; Student Union of Philadelphia
Roxann Joseph — Health Department
Joe James — Department of Public Safety
Ryan Nickels — Digital Impact Group
Joe Boxman — Philadelphia Academies
Kristan Roehrs — Team Children
Erika Owens — Philadelphia Public Notebook
Noam Cohen — The New York Times
Carolyn — Facilitator
Gena Seroogy — Notetaker, Free Library of Philadelphia

Comments on speakers/topics of opening session:

The facilitator invited everyone to introduce themselves and the organization(s) they represented. Participants were divided into pairs to discuss a) the ideas and concepts they heard in the morning presentation, b) what they thought about the ideas, and c) any other ideas. After approximately 5 to 10 minutes the pairs formed a circle for discussion. The facilitator took notes on a flipchart as people shared their thoughts (transcription of the chart notes provided in the attached appendix). Most participant's comments did not directly address the speakers or topics of the opening session; they focused instead on ideas for project priorities and possible services, as well as possible challenges.

General Summary of Workgroup Discussion:

The two main priorities identified by a group vote at the end of the discussion were to 1) provide internet access for low-income and disenfranchised populations and 2) emphasize connectivity at home and places where people gather. Ideas generated from the discussion leading up to the vote included the importance of providing hardware and training for individuals to fully utilize and learn to maximize access to the internet, discussions of what kind of hardware, training, and access locations could be appropriate for specific audiences, and sustainability issues/concerns. Specific suggestions and concerns are outlined in the following sections.

Hot topics:
– These topics came up repeatedly

• In home access versus community centers
• Importance of access to hardware and connectivity, as well as training
• Definitions of “Free and Universal”
• Questions of sustainability

Important issues and concerns:

The following ideas/suggestions were brought up by individual participants as part of the general discussion, not arrived at through a consensus.

• Clarify that “citizen” means everyone not just legal residents
• Training and educating educators in how to use the technology is important in addition to providing training and hardware directly to users
• All “intermediaries” should being trained [in technology]: health professionals, social workers (people who have direct contact with vulnerable populations)
• Provide training to service providers, such as community based organizations and
• Leverage funds by “mashing up projects/services”
• Connect resources in a ”package” -- providing training, hardware, and everything needed for full access
• Coordinate organizations’ resources so efforts are not duplicated
• Think about connecting people versus resources
• Train people or identifying contacts in neighborhoods to serve as resources for the community members
• Emphasize connectivity in the home above all else
• Let communities identify the best place for access (in home or centralized) and the best form of technology for their residents
• Connect City workers to online services while they’re doing field work – particularly language resources
• Ideas related to “content”
• Connect people to content (one place/portal)
• Help people create their own content
• Help people share content
• Focus on training and capaCity building rather than technology since technology will become outdated quickly and training lasts longer
• Home access is really important; rich people shouldn’t be only with truly convenient access.
• Home computer access could really change people’s opinion/understanding of technology, don’t just “teach a man to fish,” but also provide him with a rod.
• Empower people to lead themselves and access their potential/passion/purpose and connect to each other
• Internal innovations lead to sustainability, participating organizations should be focused on that internal innovation to better serve people (i.e. technology should support collaboration among community based organizations)
• Enable communities to develop own leaders who pass that training on as form of sustainability
• Engage young people in training other youth and also adults; this allows youth to get excited about technology and also provides youth job opportunities
• Have community leaders connect people to resources (technology resources) for sustainability
• Access to technology will help people harness the power to fight for services they need, such as health care advocacy and awareness
• Engage community leaders – City has 6,000 block captains
• A “coordinator” model could be used for community leaders= neighborhood institutions could identify appropriate people
• Could think about a model that involves a network of people to help others get online within a two block radius of their home
• Provide training for using technology, but also training for careers in technology (beyond basic usage)
• Provide training to expand skill sets and technical knowledge of young people
• Many teens know how to use technology for entertainment but not necessarily for education or job, etc purposes
• Allow youth to think outside box for real world applications of technology; let youth drive what the real world application should be (empower them)
• Peer to peer trainings for youth
• Resources and information designed by them to help them guide and think about life planning (let youth determine what hardware, trainings, and resources they need)
• Hardware suggestion for a zip drive for individuals that contains medical resources records
• Goal to catapult literacy levels as a result of access to resources, internet and computers
• Definition of vulnerable audiences includes, homeless, drug and alcohol, mental and physical challenges
• Make treatment centers and homeless centers access sites
• Privacy can be a valid reason for individual access instead of access centers
• The increasing portability of computers and technology may eliminate issues of whether or not to have a centralized access location
• Provide hardware to children of immigrants
• Identify community leaders to facilitate and build infrastructure, block captains, grass roots organizations
• Engage organizations working in targeted communities to develop programming; don’t reinvent wheel
• Create City office to process applications facilitate community organizing
• Response to this suggestion from another participant: “less government is better”
• Providing all homes with computer and/or access should be a project goal
• Services/connections for the low income populations should not be inferior (or come with strings attached)
• Trainings should be reflective/tailored to the culture, literacy, different ages, etc of vulnerable populations and should be offered in a wide variety of geographic locations, times, etc
• Suggested goal that the City should strive for everyone who lives at 300% under the poverty level has access to the internet and appropriate hardware
• Internet access should be considered a basic utility like water and power
• Ideas for things to be provided:
• Internet access
• Hardware
• - Portable computers
• - “net books” that are not software heavy, just connect to the internet
• - “cloud computing”
• - Smart phones
• Training
• - Appropriate technology and training can be defined by the community and users
• Possible access sites:
• schools
• community centers
• performing arts
• recreation centers
• libraries
• transport centers
• religious orgs
• supermarkets
• parks
• prisons
• government buildings
• health care centers
• homeless centers
• malls/shopping centers
• check cashing places
• kiosk
• wherever ATMs are located
• gyms
• train/bus stations

Concerns/Obstacles:

The following concerns/obstacles were brought up by individual participants as part of the general discussion, not arrived at through a consensus.

• Security and privacy for users
• Maintenance and management of the system and individual hardware
• Financial sustainability
• What about costs beyond stimulus funding?
• Should use be restricted? What about abuse of service (example of pornography)?
• How to mediate the dynamic between entertainment and “more important” usage (like homework or job search)
• “People in power will object to giving power to poor”
• “Corporations will fight against providing free internet service”
• Physical safety of users carrying hardware – will people be targets for theft in some neighborhoods?
• Issue of waiting a long time for access and not having a very long time to use the computer (at centralized access sites like recreation centers or libraries)
• Consider upgrades and replacements
• What about people who don’t have homes? (in response to importance of home access)
• Consider homeless shelters
• Young people may not hang out at traditional community spots (like churches); consider examples of other places that many young people hang out such as salons and arcades
• “Corporations have promised universal access and have failed”
• Need to determine outcomes
• Need to determine clear methodology
• Need to determine sustainability plan
• Need to determine criteria for who will qualify for free access (neighborhoods or families/individuals)
• What is the definition of “disenfranchised” and vulnerable populations? Who does that include?

Outstanding issues and questions:

• Where/how will the ideas generated in this brainstorming session be shared?
• How will the community be able to stay involved in the project as the proposal is written?

This group was asked to consider how best to provide Broadband access and adoption to Philadelphia's underserved populations.

Hot topics:

• Training in cost effective way to individual communities
• Cultural expression
• City support
• We are investing in a cast societal change
• Governance
• Content creation; production
• Household access
• Focus on low income
• Integrated technology centers
• Comprehensive plan of above
• Practical approach; work with non profits
• Scalability – success to build upon in the future
• Sustainability
• Can we figure out sustainability in 45 days?
• Look at each program (i.e. police and fire can stand on their own but what to do with other non-profits)
• Measureable – show results
• Filter-based on community priorities (i.e. Mayor’s High School Goal)

Important Issues and Concerns:

• City keen to keep us all on board.
• Access to existing right of way for infra-structure; high rates a challenge.
• City priority is un- or underserved.
• Community participation is huge priority.
• Multi-purpose projects priority.
• Fiber – not just City but schools, libraries, etc.
• Digital literacy.
• Start at all education levels
• Birth to Senior
• Technology to better lives through access to information.
• Philadelphia is multi-ethnic and a center for media creation.
• Governance structure.
• MCOT to expand and focus on connecting community
• How can City help? Continue dialogue beyond stimulus
• Re-set game
• Help one in four living in poverty have a seat at the table.
• Is physical infra-structure in place?
• How to bring it together
• i.e. Family.net at school system
• How to get pieces to converge around citizens.
• Purchase EarthLink existing structure.
• Create master plan – i.e. connect with PHA.
• PennDot opens a road, we put in fiber.
• Use stimulus to connect the dots.
• Tech speak does not get to customer needs; start at child’s level i.e. safety to school (Kiosk); business and libraries not enough; need PCs at home. DHS should speak for families. Address new Americans (language barriers).
• Business digital divide. Help small businesses as part of this effort.
• Too many barriers after receiving computer (all in English or lack of computer familiarity).
• Teach simple computer maintenance.
• Computer literacy and concept training.
• Did not hear about intergenerational and elders; a block captain with computer.
• Make plans around people (digital inclusion of students).
• Digital storytelling and civic engagement.
• Broad focus on media; what is reason to have a computer.
• What are we writing grant for? Infrastructure?
• Need multi-purpose project.
• Local factory builds computers (welfare to work); need instructor pool.
• Homebound computer service.
• Computer refurbishing program for incarcerated youth.
• HUD; Green: workforce are other sources of additional ARRA funding.
• How do underserved afford technology?
• NTR sells 89 computers.
• Look for financing options.
• Cost of connectivity?
• Pay for dial-up (NTR)
• ARRA will pay for hardware and access; but what after?
• Mobile devices – ask carriers to unbundle to get home service at price of phone or cable?
• Three years from now a PC in every home.
• Sustainability is crucial
• Will market return us to better options?
• HUD to include internet in utility costs.
• Broadband access is causing segmentation at income level.
• Care principle: equal bandwidth for all.
• Limits on time or other segmentation?
• DSL adequate though not for movie/music.
• Subsidize costs by higher cost purchasers.
• Stimulate applications: chess or GED
• Use corporate trainers in state facilities/universities for sustainability, train to be employed
• Entrepreneurial training
• New Jobs!
• Sustainability credits from internet carries
• Micro training centers.
• No privatization of technology – should be public sector.
• Open source applications.
• Use mobile devices; create cell phone applications.
• Group use of technology; grassroots effort; tell their stories; create content and communicate it.
• Bring community to the table i.e. create video and share. Research shows this is a good way to drive technology adoption.
• Give lots of people incentives to create content; disseminate to police, etc.
• Currently training taxi drivers in “holding lot” at the airport. This has been successful.
• Neighborhoods have librarians who provided guided access.
• Organize by outcomes
• Health – how to get to what we want
• Safety – i.e. a street light was out or there was a mugging.
• Etc.
• Block captain sends out messages for neighborhood.
• Content can make people want training.
• Teach people how to be lifelong learners.
• Everyone can learn – important frame of mind; how do people learn? Small business owners need focused help. They are an economic driver.
• Area or population specific; pick organization already working with workforce, children, youth, etc.
• NTIA wants to see new concepts; be flexible about creativity.
• Personal involvement (i.e. see yourself) leads to adoption.
• Collaboration – put tall things and then scale up (solves a lot of problems) and City does infrastructure.
• Start with “Cultural Access”.
• Think of models for scale.
• Innovation fund too.
• Bigger than stimulus – about building sustainable plan (there are other funds)
• Deadline focuses mind.
• $26.00 per person – so just a start.