Internet providers are not your friends

I know that Internet providers are not my friends, but I forget. I get taken in by the ads letting me know they are there to make my life easier and more enjoyable. They are there to help my kids learn.

I have two Internet accounts – both from the same company. One account allows access in Minneapolis in the Minneapolis metro area and the other in northern Wisconsin. I will say up front that I am lucky to be able to split my retirement time between two locations and to afford two Internet accounts. I do feel lucky. This is not the issue. My Wisconsin place is located in one of the poorest counties in Wisconsin and many of my neighbors with kids depend on the same Internet access I have if they can afford access at all.

My Minneapolis account is 20 Mbps. My Wisconsin account costs about half again as much and is far slower. Unless you experienced the Internet from the days of the acoustic modem, it will likely be difficult to understand just how slow slow is. I can watch the individual components of a web page load. I cannot teach from here because the upload speed will not support a video signal. Cindy and I have become dependent on online services. I have to be careful when working because the online service may time out without my knowing this has happened. Work I assumed has been saved may not be saved.

Every once in a while, we become convinced that our Internet connection must be having difficulty and we call the provider. Sometimes there is a problem and sometimes there is a fix. Sometimes there is no problem and we are reminded just how slow our connection is. Today was one of those days. We were asked to run a speed check and we found that our connection speed was 1.53. It turns out that this is actually faster than we pay for. Our plan (at $66 per month) is 1.51.

Speed_Test

Now, this might be the end of the story, but this would not be in keeping with my title. I understand enough of the reality of Internet access to know that digital connections at a distance in rural areas offer special problems and are more expensive because of the lack of subscribers. Fair enough. However, when making the call to the provider, Cindy happened to ask if any new plans were available that offered better bandwidth (we have had the present plan for three years).

It turns out that things have improved. In addition to the 1.51 plan, there are also now 10 and 15 Mbps plans. Great. The 15 Mpbs play costs more than 10 Mpbs plan and requires that you pay for new equipment. Here is the thing that is weird. Both plans, even with the cost of the new equipment, are less expensive than our present plan.

How is this possible? It might make some sense that we would not want to purchase new equipment (although the annual cost would be less). Why, if the cost of the 10 Mpbs plan was less than what we were presently paying for 1.5, would a company not simply flip the switch to give you better bandwidth even at the same higher price?

Here are a couple of take aways:

Do not assume your provider will pass new opportunities on to you. There is evidently no obligation  your provider will inform you of new opportunities at lower prices. The only logic that applies here is the logic of the provider making more money at a lower investment. You will have to ask.

The next time you hear the argument that competition will take care of companies doing the right thing and the government needs to stay away from regulation, take such claims with a grain of salt. You cannot assume that competition actually exists and you certainly cannot assume that companies operate according to anything but a profit motive.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Internet providers are not your friends

Tim Cook and Testing Machines

Buzzfeed offered a short post in which Tim Cook, Apple CEO, was interviewed about Apple losing its hold on the K-12 tech market to chromebooks. Excerpts from this interview generated a lot of attention from those making tech decisions in schools. Cook seemed to be claiming that the popularity of the chromebooks was driven by their popularity as testing devices.

“Assessments don’t create learning,” Cook said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Wednesday, calling the cheap laptops that have proliferated through American classrooms mere “test machines.”

It is difficult to know how accurately Mr. Cook’s beliefs were communicated or how we would prioritize the multiple reasons those making purchases might take into account when making a decision. He may not have intended this to generate much public attention. I hope he does not think suitability for online testing is a major reason most districts select a given device or if the devices must serve in this capacity that this is the only activity for which they are appropriate. Perhaps he has been influenced by the over the top rhetoric of the political season and assumes there are no consequences for statements. I would not doubt that some administrators made compatibility with the tech requirements for testing a factor. This would then encourage a closer look at netbooks, laptops, and desktops. Apple has several products in these categories.

I would suggest that misidentifying reasons for purchases has important consequences. Belittling decision makers by suggesting they are interested in little more than testing is no way to win friends and if you actually believe this you may be blind to limitations in your own business model.

I own pretty much every device Apple sells as well as chromebooks, a windows laptop, android tablets, etc. I do use iPads heavily, but I will say that until I purchased the Pro I found iPads limited for heavy writing tasks. iPad pros would be great in schools, but the cost is prohibitive. I don’t hear Mr. Cook saying much about cost.

I could generate a list of pro chromebook features for the classroom, but this work has already been done. Here is an great summary by Andy Losik.

 

[written on a chromebook]

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Tim Cook and Testing Machines

National data on classroom use

The Department of Education Office of Educational Technology has received a lot coverage for the release of its National Education Technology Plan. I am still working my way through the document.

I wish the Department of Education would offer more insight into how technology is used in schools. The department used to conduct frequent surveys of various types and had a series focused on how teachers use technology in the classroom (and personally). I just do not see much data being collected and nothing on general classroom use since 2009.

techsurveys

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on National data on classroom use

American RadioWorks

American RadioWorks produces audio documentaries for Public Radio. I was listening to a Dec. 7 Public Radio program contrasting Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and happened to notice the source for the content. In following up on the web site, I discovered a great collection of content included a great series on education.

Check this site for content for classroom use and for personal professional development. As an example, try this program on technology and personalized learning.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on American RadioWorks

Objection to the objections

 

A recent EdSurge post attempts to explain resistance to digital textbooks and lists four “issues”. As the author of a digital textbook, I feel the need to respond.

1. Digital textbooks do not offer lifetime access. – First, this is not true unless the digital content is leased in some way (BTW – most college book stores and textbook companies now lease/rent textbooks). Second, if you purchase digital content it is yours. With companies such as Amazon, you can actually redownload your purchases making the purchase more practically accessible than the book yet may have stored in a box ten years and three moves ago. Finally, very few students ever return to most of the textbooks they purchase. They sell them back.

2. It is more difficult to learn from a digital textbook. I would suggest that this depends on how the student uses it. I agree with the author that reading from a smartphone is not easy. It can be done, but this would seem a matter of convenience or cost savings. Digital textbooks are easily highlighted and annotated and more can be done with these interactions than with the markup applied to paper textbook. Depending on the source, mobility and access are also often better with digital content. The content typically can be loaded to more than one device and thus is more accessible than the book you left in your dorm room or school locker.

3. Digital textbooks may be expensive because they cannot be sold back. Note first of all that this contradicts the first concern raised by the author. Also, as I mention above, digital content can often be leased or rented just as is the case with traditional books.

4. Digital content is useless without Internet access. Technically this is true. I assume the meaning is without any access ever. However, once loaded to a device (or several devices – this can be important) continued Internet access is not necessary. Access can be argued several ways. As I suggest in response to concern #3, it is very possible to argue that digital content is actually more accessible.

Criticism of these criticisms is far too easy. Such concerns are more a matter of lack of information and experience than reality.

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Objection to the objections

Paper vs Screen

If you are concerned about reading on devices, you may find this fairly extensive summary in Scientific American of interest. I guess the article comes down slightly on the side of paper, but does admit that the findings seem to be shifting over time (more recent studies are less likely to show differences). Experience may have solved early problems with reading on screen and the devices may have become more “eye friendly”.

I find some of the explanations baffling (biological interpretations that suggest we treat words on paper differently) and some explanations accurate but mostly due to a lack of experience (the ability to move about within text easily). I am also interested in the opportunity for multiple individuals to highlight and annotate the same content either for private use or for sharing. There are just some new opportunities that technology makes available.

I do think some reading activities that would clearly demonstrate the value of device-based reading exist and were ignored. For example, the ability to easily search within multiple sources and the ability to search for personal highlights or annotations. My interests are somewhat different from a casual reader. I have not purchased a physical book in several years but dozens a year for devices.

I suppose my bias here is obvious, but the article does offer a slightly different perspective if you are looking for arguments in favor of paper.

 

Loading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Paper vs Screen