Thanksgiving weekend is a time for a turkey, family, and football. After you've gotten your fill of all three - is it really possible? - maybe there is time for a little reflection too.

In that spirit, we're reflecting on the responses to our public notice and from our ongoing conversations with the American public about the Smart Grid - the modernization of the electrical grid. We're also reflecting on the recent presentation to the Commission about critical gaps in the path to future universal broadband.

I'm often asked, why focus on the Smart Grid in the energy section of the broadband plan? The answer is simple-we have a climate crisis on our hands, and broadband and IT need to be part of the solution. In fact, smart electric grids, smart homes, and smart buildings-sometimes collectively called the smart grid-are the greatest opportunity for broadband and IT to reduce carbon emissions. One study recently concluded that smart grids, homes, and buildings could reduce over 800 million tons of annual carbon emissions by 2020. That's the equivalent of taking more than 100 million gasoline-fueled cars off the road.

The responses to the public notice on Smart Grid issues have also made it clear that there are two issues that we need to address in a comprehensive plan to Congress.

First, it's clear from the record that our electrical system-really a collection of systems-will require greater data connectivity across the entire grid, from generation to transmission to distribution to the meter, and within the home and building. As we have more distributed generation, plug-in electric vehicles, and retail prices that better reflect costs, we'll need to modernize the grid, with greater communications and IT throughout.

It's also clear from the record that each Smart Grid application has different networking requirements, from meters that must be read once per day, to advanced sensors called synchrophasors that must report power quality data in a continuous stream.

As a result, there are a variety of networks already being used to support the Smart Grid, including private and commercial, wired and wireless, narrowband and broadband. What is less clear is how these requirements will change as the Smart Grid continues to develop, and as greater intelligence and control is pushed deeper into the network.

Second, a lot of the expected benefits of the Smart Grid are really benefits we'll gain from smarter homes and smarter buildings. Consumers and building owners will be expected to interact with the grid in new ways, including the "Prius Effect", which refers to the way Toyota Prius drivers responded to the prominent display on the car's dashboard of real-time fuel economy by changing their driving behavior to get even better mileage. Similarly, exposure to better energy consumption information can help encourage energy savings behavior. But a lot of the benefits will be the automation of home or building systems to manage energy better - you won't have to lift a finger!

The wealth of consumption and pricing data that will be created by the smart grid can enable a variety of innovative products and services. But who will control access to this data? If third parties develop products and services, how should consumers connect them to this data? Can the Smart Grid do for energy what the Internet did for communications and media?

It's clear the Smart Grid holds enormous promise to help tackle our national goals in energy and the environment. In order to do so, it will be important to address the communications and energy information questions. We're intently focusing on these issues as we consider the final shape of the National Broadband Plan.

 In order to add to the record, and gather additional input, we're also holding a Commissioner-led field hearing on Energy and the Environment on Monday, Nov. 30th, at MIT in Cambridge, Mass., at 1 p.m. The entire event is open to the public and available online at http://www.fcc.gov/live/. Video of the hearing will also be archived on the field hearing site. [Ed. update: video from yesterday's field hearing is available here]

Enough reflecting for now. Back to the leftover turkey!

Last week at the Commission meeting, the Broadband Taskforce outlined key gaps in broadband service that need to be addressed. There are connectivity gaps in the healthcare sector that I think are important and worth highlighting.

• How should we think about the way that information about new and existing broadband service is displayed and communicated? 
• Is this information comparable from one service offering to another?
• How do we ensure privacy of consumer information?

• How should we augment existing data to track, measure and report broadband service performance across the nation?
• What are the most useful pieces of performance information for consumers, researchers, service providers and regulators?
• How should performance be measured?
• What are the benefits and what are the costs of measurement?

• How should we increase transparency of broadband services offered for multi-unit residential and commercial buildings?

Answering these questions will help identify ways to educate broadband consumers, a goal everyone agrees is in the best interests of the country. Striking the right balance on depth of information, communication, privacy, display and cost effectiveness will be difficult, but we intend to find the right path. We need your input and thoughts on new ways of thinking that empower consumers.

Last month, the FCC presented its workshop on Diversity and Civil Rights Issues in Broadband Deployment and Adoption. As part of the workshop, the FCC invited a panel of experts to discuss the best strategies for closing the gap in broadband access and adoption.

These experts included investors whose investment strategies place a heavy emphasis on technology companies and educators who are focused on creating community technology centers. Laura Efurd, Vice President of ZeroDivide, discussed the best practices for addressing civil rights issues in adoption. She pointed out that broadband adoption issues demonstrate a divide among race, age, disability, and geography. She noted that this divide is part of a larger problem that exists in our country, and that in order to address best practices, the adoption issues should be addressed holistically. That means focusing on racial, cultural, and socioeconomic factors that may affect adoption.

Antoinette Cook Bush of Skadden Arps discussed a number of ways the government can support the deployment and adoption of broadband technologies. Ms. Bush suggested that existing programs such as Lifeline, Linkup, and other Universal Service Fund programs, should be used to expand broadband services. Ms. Bush, who is also the chairperson of the broadband subcommittee of the Federal Diversity Advisory Committee, pointed to a number of "best practices" provided by that committee. Patricia Bransford is the President of National Urban Technology Center, one program highlighted by the Diversity Advisory Committee. Ms. Bransford emphasized that Internet training programs must be used to assist people with different learning styles by making learning more visual and by strategically focusing on ways to include the 30% of high school kids who drop out during their high school experience.

Heather Dawn Thompson of Sonnenshein, Nath, & Rosenthal argued that the U.S. government must become more adept at creative financing and become more inclusive of tribal governments in order to empower them to create broadband companies on tribal lands. And Jonathan Glass, Principal of Council Tree Investors, confirmed that his investment company and others like his are keenly interested in working with diverse groups to increase broadband adoption. He illustrated how support from the federal government and the FCC can advance these initiatives, including on Native American tribal land.

Panelists emphasized that broadband deployment and adoption must be viewed from many different paradigms in order to include as many Americans as possible. A deployment and adoption plan that is best for a tribal government or a desert county may not be best for a thriving metropolitan area or a sleepy southern town. As panelist Geoffrey Blackwell noted, "one size fits none." It is not sufficient to roll out a plan and expect all Americans to implement it in the same way. The plan must address the needs of the unserved and the underserved alike. To empower citizens, it must be community based. At the same time, it must have the full support of government agencies that will use existing programs to support local broadband efforts and ensure sustainability over time. In short, the national broadband plan must be flexible enough to meet the needs of all Americans wherever they are on the technology spectrum.

This is the last in a four-part blog on the Diversity and Civil Rights Issues in Broadband Deployment and Adoption workshop held on October 2, 2009. Full biographies and a transcript of the workshop can be found at http://www.broadband.gov/ws_diversity.html

This is the third in a four-part series of blogs on Diversity and Civil Rights Issues in Broadband Adoption and Access.  The full biographies of all participants can be found at http://www.broadband.gov/docs/ws_diversity/ws_diversity.doc.

What is the federal government compelled to do, and what is it prohibited from doing to promote access and adoption for all Americans in the National Broadband plan?  That was the topic of the second panel in the workshop on Diversity and Civil Rights Issues in Broadband Access and Adoption.  As FCC Commission Michael Copps said in opening the panel, "This is where the rubber really hits the road."

The panel featured a range of lawyers and scholars wrestling with the thorny issue of federal action that might target those groups that do not have access to broadband or are not adopting broadband, while adhering to the constitutional mandate of equal protection for all Americans.  The panelists discussed the different legal review standards applied to racial and ethnic minorities as compared to Native Americans or the poor, the challenges in subsidizing religious groups, and what other federal agencies have done to address the different needs of distinct American communities.

Allen Hammond, a law professor at Santa Clara University, focused on the FCC's responsibility.  Relying on the preamble to the Communications Act, Sections 706 and 257 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Professor Hammond argued that "the Commission is required to facilitate inclusive, non-discriminatory, affordable access to broadband in a reasonable and timely manner, and if access is not reasonable and timely, to take immediate action to accelerate deployment by removing barriers to investment and promoting competition." 

University of Pennsylvania Professor and former Chairperson of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry noted that "race is the bugbear in the room." According to Dr. Berry, to meet the judicial standard or review applied to race-conscious measures, also known as strict scrutiny, "What you've got to do is make sure that you prove that there is a compelling governmental interest and make sure that you show that you narrowly tailored whatever you do in this plan, and that you tried every alternative possible, that you are monitoring what you are going to do, and that whatever you're doing is of short duration."  Dr. Berry repeatedly emphasized the importance of "overwhelming evidence."  She ended on an encouraging note, saying that it was "possible for the FCC to develop a plan that will ensure success, meeting the needs of all our people and exercising the FCC's responsibility." 

Thomas Henderson, a long-time civil rights attorney, argued that the FCC "can act with an awareness of race . . .  so long as you're not classifying people or treating people differently."   However, he added, although "race-neutral remedies are sometimes disparaged and seen as not effective, there are lots of reasons to consider them thoroughly.  One, you can get a lot done through race-neutral means.  Secondly, they can be really useful in identifying where the real barriers are.  And the third thing is employing them and using them provides a very good basis for race-conscious actions if you need to take them."

David Honig, Executive Director of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, and chairperson of the Diversity Advisory subcommittee on constitutional issues, referred the FCC to the advisory committee recommendations to replace the current eligible entity designation with a program like those used in state university systems, also known as a full file review.  Honig proposed that an entity might be considered eligible for a credit if it has overcome a disadvantage.  "The overcoming of which is predictive of entrepreneurial success."  According to Honig, credit would be given to those who could demonstrate some social disadvantage, such as "disadvantages that derive from having experienced racial discrimination or gender discrimination or the various disabilities that, unfortunately, attend veterans' status or living in certain geographic areas or certain kinds of disabilities."  

Geoffrey Blackwell, of the Chickasaw Nation Industries, the National Congress of American Indians, and Native Public Media is also a member of the Diversity Advisory Committee.  He noted that Native Americans could also be considered in the proposed full file review program.  Blackwell noted that "the Commission has very good tools... developed over the last 10 years that it can draw upon" to increase broadband access and adoption on Tribal Lands, such as the Enhanced Tribal Lands Lifeline and Link-Up Program "that created significant rises in the telephone penetration rate in Indian Country."  According to Blackwell, because of the special status of sovereign Native American Tribes, strict scrutiny would not apply. 

Professor Mara Einstein of Queens College and the Stern School of Business at New York University argued that whatever policy the FCC considered needed to take into account the economic fundamentals of media in the U.S.  Dr. Einstein argued that it was especially important to recognize that "when it comes to revenue generation, new media looks exactly like old media, and this economic model is anathema to content diversity." 

She gave various examples of "why the market can't or rather won't solve the problem of the digital divide" as it relates to generating content that might spur adoption.   Dr. Einstein suggested that the government "fund and promote categories of content without specifying what exactly the content should be."

Henderson proposed that there were measures that the FCC could take now to advance diversity and equal opportunity in any National Broadband Plan that contemplates direct federal employment to advance either deployment or broadband service.  Specifically, Executive Order 11246 requires a federal contractor not to discriminate.  In addition, with respect to any federal contracts with private employers, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act provides that recipients of federal financial assistance are prohibited from discriminating. 

Henderson also suggested that the study conducted by the Department of Transportation would be a useful guide.  That study resulted in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.  A program upheld in the federal courts as being constitutional.

All the panelists agreed with the importance of gathering data to guide and support any regulatory action.  But they also noted that the FCC has to avoid its tendency to develop rules in silos without fully appreciating the impact of all its policies. As Professor Hammond put it, "You can't implement [diversity] policy without taking into account what you're doing in the rest of the regulatory space."

Professor Berry echoed Commissioner Robert McDowell's opening comments about the inevitability of litigation aimed at whatever rules the FCC eventually adopts, and urged the Commission to anticipate "who is likely to bring a legal attack, understand why would they bring it and what are they likely to argue, and to know how to repel them before they do it."

No, we’re not talking about an android in a transporter. We’re talking about the data that pass through government systems, and the ways in which the public can make use of the data. As access to and adoption of broadband increases, the capacity for the flow of data between government and the public increases, enabling the provision of new services online. With that in mind, we’ve issued a Public Notice seeking your comments, data and analysis regarding data transparency, cloud computing, and online identity.

Chairman Genachowski discusses the Open Commission Meeting at which the FCC heard a presentation from the Omnibus Broadband Initiative: