• Introduction : Broadband And Technology Investments
• Universal And Affordable High-Speed Internet
• Map High-Speed Internet Infrastructure
• Deployment Plans And Partnerships
• Fund Deployment
• Protect Municipal High-Speed Networks
• State Statewide Video Franchising Reforms
• Increase Technology Literacy & Inclusion
• Fund Community Technology
• Prepare Children For The 21st Century
• Support Alternative Media
• Leverage Technology For Economic Development, Health,
• Energy And Educational Opportunities
• Economic Development
• Distance Learning
• Local Investments For Technology-Based Growth
• Invest State Funds In Technology Startups
• Encourage Technology Transfers From Universities
• Strengthen Industrial Clusters
• Invest In “Domestic Emerging Markets”
• Strengthen Regional Cooperation

Broadband – high-speed Internet – has the potential to transform the way we live, learn, work and play, and the power to be a galvanizing political tool, uniting progressives across the nation. Combined with investments in digital inclusion programs that are needed to prepare the next generation of workers, and public investments in local technology, states can incorporate technological advancement as a key part of a progressive economic growth agenda.

High-speed Internet has been one of the most transformative communication technologies in human history; just as important as other traditional public goods or infrastructure investments. It is no longer a luxury—but a public necessity. With universal and affordable high-speed Internet, states can leverage technology as an economic development tool and a means of providing better healthcare services, smarter environmental policies, and greater educational opportunities. As this packet will demonstrate, promoting increased access to and adoption of high-speed Internet, will not only provide many societal benefits, but can unite economic development experts, healthcare advocates, environmentalist, labor unions and educators.

Unfortunately, nearly 20 million Americans today do not have access to a single high-speed Internet provider, and even more are currently priced out of the market. In fact, only 50 percent of American households subscribe to broadband Internet. This number shows how unprepared Americans are for the technology age in which they live. A closer look at the numbers reveals that access and use of the Internet is heavily weighted toward the upper echelons of society. Certain demographics have effectively been left out of the digital renaissance. A study conducted in 2007 found that geography, income, ethnicity, education and age all impact high-speed Internet adoption.

• Geographic Divide: Broadband Internet adoption in rural areas lags behind adoption in urban and suburban communities. Only 39% of rural households report having high-speed Internet.

• Economic Divide: Only 35% of homes with less than $50,000 in annual income have high-speed Internet, while 76% of households earning more than $50,000 per year are connected.

• Racial / Ethnical Divide: High-speed Internet adoption varies depending on race. 55% of non-Hispanic whites have high-speed Internet access at home, while only 40% of racial and ethnic minorities do.

Source: US 2007 Census

While the U.S. has struggled to combat our nation’s digital divide, other countries have instituted serious deployment plans and regulatory schemes to ensure wide-spread adoption of broadband Internet. Today, our European and Asian counterparts greatly outpace us in development of high-speed Internet infrastructure. For the second year running, the U.S. ranked 15th among the 30 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development in terms of high-speed Internet adoption. Additionally, U.S. broadband Internet providers often charge higher prices for slower connection than providers in many developed nations.

International Comparison: United States Broadband Decline; Source: OECD 2007

The lack of effective federal government action to date should compel states to bridge the digital divide. States need to create policies to promote access to and utilization of high-speed Internet and related applications. Technology is our greatest partner and asset as we work to conquer the challenges that threaten our future. Universal affordable high-speed Internet:

• Can help rejuvenate a lagging economy: Spurs economic development, increases economic equality and increased job opportunities.

• Provides increased access to basic services: Supports the merging of technology and basic services to provide increased accessibility to basic services, and for certain residents, better quality in areas such as healthcare, e-government, and education.

• Can be leveraged to reduce our carbon footprint and energy use: Permits more efficient energy use and can be an essential component of many environmentally friendly policies.

• Promotes a diversity of voices: Provides more accessible media and creative outlets to all communities.

• Increases democracy: High-speed Internet allows for a more participatory and efficient democratic system. Individuals with broadband find it easier to research candidates and can review local and state hearings and agency meetings.

The key to advancing the widespread adoption of high-speed Internet in the states is to promote universal, affordable high-speed Internet, fund digital inclusion programs, educate leaders and the public on how to utilize high-speed Internet for economic and social benefits, and to support local investment in technology based growth.

• Universal, Affordable High-speed Internet Policies: To compete on a global level and to ensure equity of services to citizens, states should promote universal affordable high-speed Internet. Without universal and affordable high-speed Internet, a state’s ability to leverage technology as an economic development tool and a means of providing better healthcare services, smarter environmental policies and greater educational opportunities, is severely limited. The first step states need to take to provide affordable high-speed Internet for all is to determine where high-speed Internet access is lacking. Once under-served populations are determined, states can develop technology councils to plan the strategic deployment of high-speed Internet, capable of supporting advanced applications.

• Increasing Technology Literacy Equalizes Opportunities: In every state there exists a digital divide between those who have access to high-speed Internet and those who do not. The digital divide, however, is not only a function of lacking access to high-speed Internet, but also lacking the necessary technology literacy skills to function in our 21st century digital world. For example, increasingly more jobs in both the service and manufacturing sectors, in particular higher paying jobs, require digital skills. Combating the digital divide is a key component to combating the growing economic inequality in this country. Therefore, states must compliment high-speed Internet deployment by supporting digital education programs, funding community technology centers, and establishing computer disbursement programs. Such programs help to ensure that residents of all ethnicities, social economic backgrounds, and ages understand how to be producers for as well as consumers of this 21st century economy.

• High-speed Internet Rejuvenates the Economy and Promotes Better Healthcare, Environmental Policies and Educational Opportunities: High-speed Internet infrastructure is the key to states rejuvenating and sustaining their economy. Universal and affordable high-speed Internet enables states to utilize technology to provide better access to healthcare, promote energy efficient and environmentally friendly policies, and provide increased educational opportunities to all. For example, the utilization of telehealth technology has the potential to deliver huge cost savings to America’s health care system–-over $300 billion annually. And this is just one sliver of the savings pie. It is estimated that widespread adoption of high-speed Internet will add $134 billion to the U.S. economy annually and create 1.2 million new jobs per year.

• Local Investments for Technology-Based Growth: State governments manage trillions of dollars in financial assets. This money can be a key tool to promote technology innovation and economic equity. Linking state-controlled financial capital with university innovation and local entrepreneurial energy can not only jumpstart job creation that will accompany high-speed Internet deployment, but can also be used to revitalize economically abandoned communities most in need of jobs.

The benefits of high-speed Internet, laid out in this packet, are clear and overwhelming. Yet, to achieve wide-spread adoption of high-speed Internet, resources must be provided from public funds or public/private partnerships. Despite claims by telecommunication providers that the market will deliver these benefits to everyone, the reality is that state leaders need to leverage funding and public rights of ways as a means to bring build-out to under-served and un-served areas, provide affordable access for low-income families, and to establish regulatory oversight to protect consumer rights. Further, state leaders need to make sure that all of their residents are provided with both the digital skills and capital investments needed to take full advantage of this new communication technology.

In the last few years there have been major changes in the telecommunications environment. There is growing recognition by the public sector, businesses and communities that telecommunications infrastructure and services play an important role in economic transformation, sustainability and social well-being. The rise of more advanced Internet technologies has increased the demand for infrastructure far beyond the level previously needed. Today, we are faced with the challenge of getting universal, affordable high-speed Internet deployed, especially to under-served and un-served areas.

In order to achieve universal and affordable high-speed Internet, states must implement intertwining policies that increase access to and adoption of high-speed Internet. To achieve this goal, states need to identify where access to high-speed Internet currently exists, develop deployment strategies to increase high-speed Internet infrastructure, implement digital inclusion programs and support policies that ensure community and consumer protections in infrastructure build-out.

Map High-speed Internet Infrastructure

Today, a major digital divide exists between those who have access to high-speed Internet and those who lack access and / or the capability to use, high-speed Internet. Too many Americans, especially those in rural areas or low-income households do not have any Internet access, let alone high-speed Internet access. Mapping high-speed Internet availability and adoption, and making that information accessible to the public is an important tool for legislators and local planning groups that wish to evaluate the current status of their states’ high-speed Internet infrastructure and utilization. Such information is key when determining where to dedicate future resources when developing
deployment strategies.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—the federal government agency tasked with mapping high-speed Internet infrastructure and consumer access—has been under attack for years by critics who claim that its high-speed Internet data collection methods are flawed.

While the FCC was hesitant to change its policies, state lawmakers took matters into their own hands.

Recently, and in large part due to the momentum of state mapping legislation, the FCC finally voted to approve a new high-speed Internet data collection plan, focused on subscription information. Among other things, the FCC will require all carriers to report the number of subscribers by census tract, broken down into speed categories and separated by residential versus business usage. Despite the upcoming improvements in data collection by the FCC, certain important information, such as pricing data, is either not being collected or the Commission is still trying to figure out how to collect it. Another concern is that service providers underlying data will probably continue to be considered confidential. In addition to the subscription data collection, the FCC is now, also
taking comments about how to collect high-speed Internet availability information.

For complete information regarding high-speed Internet availability and adoption, the following information should
be collected:

• Map high-speed Internet availability: Distinguishing different speed tier offerings, pricing information, and different service providers.

• Collect data that can be utilized to address adoption and digital divide issues: Data is more helpful if collected at the census block, because it becomes easy to overlay high-speed Internet access with other census demographic information. Additionally, it is important to collect information about not only who has access to high-speed Internet, but which demographics choose to purchase such services. This will make it easier to determine which households are currently priced out of the high-speed Internet market versus which residents are not educated on the benefits and necessity of high-speed Internet and therefore choose not to subscribe. Lastly, the data collected should be designed to facilitate local community planning groups.

• Distinguish between residential and commercial properties.

• Create an authentication system: Accurate data is critical to the development and execution of good policies. Legislators should require telecommunications, cable and other high-speed Internet service providers to file their underlying data with either a public utilities commission or a third party organization to ensure some form of oversight.

Some states, such as Washington State, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, West Virginia and Kansas, have created state high-speed Internet mapping programs either through executive order or legislation. These mapping programs have and will continue to pave the way for community leaders and lawmakers to develop more efficient high-speed Internet deployment strategies that focus on both increased availability and adoption. In the future, if more comprehensive information was collected, policymakers and community organizations could better address the digital divide and lack of broadband competition in their states.

Most existing high-speed Internet mapping programs could be improved by relaxing the strict confidentiality provisions that typically prevent the public release of data collected from high-speed Internet service providers. Many advocates and community organizations feel providers cannot be held accountable for assuring that the data collected is fully accurate without some form of public oversight. In California, underlying mapping data was aggregated by a neutral third party entity. The California task force alleviated service providers’ concerns that any public release of their underlying high-speed Internet infrastructure data would be given as trade secrets to competitors negatively affecting their business, yet preserving some public oversight, by having data collected by a third-party agency, not the public.

State efforts should therefore focus on mapping the data that the FCC is missing, creating user friendly websites, preferably with searchable databases, that will allow the public access to the information collected, using the federally collected data to develop deployment strategies and working with service providers to establish some form of authentication or public release of the collected data.

See Also:

FCC Mapping Order

Progressive States, Mapping and Deploying High-Speed Internet

California Broadband Taskforce

Communication Workers of America - SpeedMatters: Affordable High-Speed Internet for All

Connected Nation

Deployment Plans and Partnerships

Once under-served populations are determined, affordable high-speed Internet needs to be deployed to these individuals. The first step to successful deployment of broadband Internet infrastructure is for states to create deployment advisory councils, consisting of diverse stakeholders, to develop a smart deployment strategy.

High-speed Internet advisory councils provide a forum for public/private collaboration and “big picture” policy direction. Any legislation establishing an advisory council should require the council consist of diverse members representing various stakeholders and experts with the express purpose of protecting municipalities’ rights, and establishing clear deployment goals and accountability metrics.

An advisory council should have strong representation from a range of community members, including local community planning groups, public interest organizations, education professionals, health care providers, public safety employees, labor groups, and state and local government leaders. It is crucial that legislation ensures that if telecommunication and service providers are included as part of an advisory council that they are balanced fairly by community voices. Providers should not have enough seats to constitute a voting quorum, since this would open up the possibility of biased findings, and hinder the committee’s ability to protect the public interest. This past legislative session, a few states created high-speed Internet deployment councils, although some of these advisory boards included too many industry representatives:

• West Virginia House Bill 4637 created a Broadband Development Fund and a Broadband Deployment Council. The Broadband Deployment Council, will provide for the development of a strategy and mechanism to be employed in extending broadband access to West Virginians by stimulating demand for those services, and by constructing the necessary infrastructure to meet that demand.

• Minnesota Senate File 1918 is a forward looking bill, which establishes an Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force. One of the responsibilities of the task force is to identify the level of broadband service, including connection speeds, that is reasonably needed by all citizens by 2015.

• Washington State enacted a bill that uses an intra-government partnership approach to ensure that deployment of the Internet will provide smart utilization in addition to increased access. Senate Bill 6438 requires a public-private partnership including representatives from various backgrounds including education and health care professionals, economic development and community development specialists, local government, telecom providers, tech companies, and telecom unions to develop a comprehensive and integrated statewide, high-speed Internet deployment and adoption strategy. The partnership’s goals include: (1) working to ensure that all residents and businesses have access to affordable
  and reliable high-speed Internet services; (2) achieving improved technology inclusion; (3) establishing and empowering local technology planning teams to assist in technology inclusion efforts; and (4) establishing and sustaining an environment ripe for statewide telecommunications and technology investment.

Further, broadband Internet deployment councils should include language to protect municipalities’ ability to build their own networks. For example, Illinois Senate Bill 2244, the High Speed Internet Services and Information Technology Act of 2008, included a specific statement making it clear that nothing in the deployment council enacting legislation should be construed to limit the ability of any municipality, county, or other unit of local government to undertake local high-speed Internet projects and related functions.

See Also:

Final Report of the California High-speed Internet Task Force - State of Connectivity: Building Innovation Through High-speed Internet

Progressive States - Mapping and Deploying High-Speed Internet

Educause White Paper, A Blueprint for Big High-speed Internet

Fund Deployment

Many states have created funds to help encourage private sector investment in high-speed Internet infrastructure. These states typically employ matching grants to improve the financial feasibility for service providers to expand operations to previously un-served areas. Other states have issued direct funding
for projects or research, including the creation of public sector entities that use state funds to construct and lease high-speed Internet infrastructure.

• In Vermont, public sector funds were used for the purchase and construction of high-speed Internet infrastructure. The Vermont Telecommunications Authority (VTA) is charged with bringing affordable high-speed Internet service capable of transfer rates of at least 1.5 megabits per second to every Vermont household by 2010. The VTA has the authority to issue up to $40 million in state-backed bonds to support the purchase and construction of broadband infrastructure. The resulting infrastructure will be owned by the state and leased to service providers; the revenues generated from leasing access will go towards repayment of the funds borrowed to finance the initial project. Out of its efforts, the VTA hopes to spur up to $200 million of private investment in broadband infrastructure.

• Maine created the ConnectME Authority to expand broadband and cellular infrastructure throughout Maine.
  The statute authorizes the ConnectME Authority to assess every communications service provider an annual fee not to exceed 0.25% of revenue received or collected for all communications services provided in the state by the provider. The fund received up to $500,000 in “seed money” annually for at least the first two years to accelerate private investment in communication services.

• The California Advanced Service Fund (CASF) was established by the California Public Utilities Commission in December of 2007 as an expected two-year program to (1) provide high-speed Internet services to areas currently without broadband access and (2) build out facilities in underserved areas if funds are still available. The program has been allocated a total of $100 million, and will provide matching funds, to qualified certified applicant carriers, up to 40 percent of the total project cost for the deployment of broadband infrastructure. CASF is funded by a 0.25% surcharge on end-users’ intrastate telecommunication bills.

Another way states could potentially fund high-speed Internet development and adoption, especially in under-served and un-served areas, is through the use of universal service funds. In the telecommunications context, universal service refers to the practice of providing a baseline level of telecommunications services to every resident of the country. States collect a portion of universal service funds fees on intrastate phone services to help keep phone costs down in rural and urban areas. High-speed Internet is the next generation of telecommunications. It can support telephone services and more advanced applications. Therefore, states should redirect portions of the state universal funds towards supporting high-speed competitive and technology neutral Internet connections, or to help subsidize households who cannot afford a high-speed Internet subscription.

See Also:

Progressive States - Mapping and Deploying High-Speed Internet

Educause White Paper - A Blueprint for Big High-speed Internet

National Governors Association - States Take Action to Expand Access to High-speed Internet Communication

Annual Report on the Activities of the ConnectME Authority

California Advanced Service Fund

Vermont Telecommunications Authority, http://www.telecomvt.org/

e-NC Authority

Protect Municipal High-speed Internet Networks

Wireless and wired technologies allow municipalities to offer a means to bridge the digital divide. Communities are now building their own wired and/or wireless “Community Internet” systems to provide dependable high-speed Internet connections to homes all across America.

Municipalities seeking to provide affordable high-speed Internet to their residents have had to deal with special interest legislation at the state level designed to shut down municipal networks. In an effort to stifle competition and protect their profits, service providers are pushing bills in state legislatures that would prohibit communities from setting up high-speed Internet networks, prevent competition and undercut local control–even in rural and low-income areas not currently served by large providers. More than a dozen states now have laws on the books
restricting cities and towns from building their own high-speed Internet networks.

New technology is making it ever more possible for cities and towns to improve access to information, provide education and job training, enhance public safety, foster technological innovation, and bolster local economic development. State laws should protect, not block, the development of municipal systems, public private partnerships, and other alternatives that promise to bring the benefits of high-speed Internet to more people.

• In Vermont the state legislature adopted Public Act 79 of 2007, which, among other things, granted towns and cities the right to deploy their own high-speed Internet infrastructure. The legislation supports such measures both by a blanket approval of cities and towns to deploy broadband infrastructure and by granting access to the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank to help with these projects. Twenty-three towns have already banded together to build the East Central Vermont Community Fiber Network that will connect under-served homes and businesses.

• Under the terms of the Minneapolis, Minnesota wireless project, which many consider one of the most successful municipal high-speed Internet program to date, the city functions as an “anchor tenant”, paying $1.25 million a year for the city’s own use of the network. Since the city agreed to be the “anchor tenant,” U.S. Internet built the high-speed network with no public financing. Additionally, U.S. Internet is providing a comprehensive set of community benefits that surpass negotiations by other cities in the country, including a $500,000 payment to create a “digital inclusion fund” that will be used to promote affordable Internet access, low-cost hardware, local content and training. In addition, U.S. Internet will direct a minimum of five percent of the network’s net profits to a digital inclusion fund for ongoing digital inclusion efforts.

See Also:

Free Press - Community Internet Background

Institute for Local Self-Reliance - Municipal Broadband: Demystifying Wireless and Fiber-Optic Options, Minneapolis Wireless Project

Common Cause - Community Broadband

Digital Access

State Statewide Video Franchising Reforms

Statewide video franchising agreements, enacted in many states, have undermined consumer protections previously provided by local franchising agreements. Analysis of the effects of statewide video franchises found that consumers in states that have enacted statewide franchising laws have seen their cable service bills go up 8 to 50 percent, depending on the level of service. Further, consumer’s complaints, in states with statewide video franchising, remain high with 74% of survey respondents reporting no reduction in the level of complaints.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, service providers have argued for years that the streamlined process of statewide video franchises, instead of local franchising agreements, could have benefits for the public; such as slightly increasing competition or facilitating a more strategic statewide universal deployment plan. These providers with interests in breaking into the TV industry, have put intense pressure on legislatures to adopt statewide video franchises. The problem is that industry players oppose the public interest requirements that always have gone hand-in-hand with franchise deals.

In the 2008 session, lawmakers in both Tennessee and Louisiana, joined 17 other states, who have enacted legislation since 2005, to allow statewide video franchises. The legislation in both states reflect the worst of the bad policies from franchise legislation enacted in other states, including minimal, if any, build-out requirements, limits to municipal power and insufficient support to PEG stations.

The negative results of statewide video franchising emphasize how crucial it is that franchise agreements protect consumers and ensure affordable access to high-speed Internet. States must protect community services, build-out requirements and PEG stations.

Build-out Requirements: As legislatures consider franchising legislation, they must confront how companies will be required, over time, to offer service to all communities. The best method to ensure that discriminatory redlining does not occur — and to bring video competition to every household — is to require franchise holders to build-out their services on a reasonable timetable. It is important that states not only specify build-out requirements, but also establish oversight mechanisms to ensure negotiated build-out actually occurs. Some of the best build-out requirement language was proposed in New York A03980, which would have required video service to be provided to half of the state’s consumers within three years and to 85% percent within five years. Companies selecting the state franchise were not allowed to reduce existing service and redlining could bring on fines.

Public, Educational and Governmental Channels: Public Educational and Government (PEG) channels are often the only remaining media outlets that broadcast local voices, cover local issues, and show exactly how local governments work. They also allow for targeted programming to reach particular segments of the community that might not be served by major outlets. In order to protect PEG stations, states must first ensure that statewide video franchises do not reduce or eliminate PEG funding and support. It is also important that states include regulations in statewide video franchising to ensure providers carry PEG channels on the most basic tier of service so that the channels are accessible to any individual with a television, regardless of income level or cable package. Michigan legislators, in an attempt to keep PEG on the basic tier, drafted HB 5693, to require that cable providers keep their government channels available to subscribers without requiring the need for additional equipment (unfortunately the provision would only apply until 2009 when all channels go digital, and thus customers would be at risk to lose access to PEG stations on a basic service level after the digital transition). Michigan’s amendment uses language similar to that in California’s state video franchising legislation,
AB 2987, which required that PEG channels be receivable by all subscribers.

Protecting Municipality Power, Community Benefits and Consumer Protections: Statewide video franchising legislation should protect municipalities’ rights to provide high-speed Internet to their residents, allow local communities to collect or share in franchising fees, and provide consumer protection mechanisms that provide fair outlets for customer service complaints.

Some state legislators have taken steps to rebut the negative trend of statewide video franchising legislation. In Minnesota SF 3337 directs the Department of Commerce to request a study to analyze the impact of enacted statewide video franchising legislation in at least three states. This thoughtful approach ensures that before Minnesota takes any action, legislators have accurate information on the potential effects of statewide franchising and what consumer and municipal protections must be included. In Maine, legislators developed Model Municipal Franchise language that has a large portion of the terms
already agreed upon by telecommunications companies and ensures that local communities negotiate for important consumer protections. The model bill is an attempt to streamline the franchising process without circumventing municipal power and community benefits.

See Also:

New Rules Project - Information Sector Policies

Educause White Paper - A Blueprint for Big High-speed Internet

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) - Understanding the Impact of State Video Services Legislation

Free Press - Video Franchising

Telecommunications Advocacy Coalition - Why Local Control?

Alliance for Community Media

Consumers Union, Elements of Consumer Friendly State Franchising Legislation

The digital divide is a term commonly used to refer to the gap in high-speed Internet access between the general population and certain demographics, particularly low-income households and racial minorities. The term, however, also refers to imbalances
in the resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen.

In order to accomplish digital inclusion, states need to look beyond simply investing in physical infrastructure. Low income individuals and people of color, groups that are frequently disenfranchised in other parts of society, often have fewer opportunities to gain essential digital skills. Aside from being left out of the technological age, individuals without necessary digital skills may soon find themselves unqualified for many employment opportunities. Most workforce professionals acknowledge the critical role that IT skills—everything from basic literacy to more dynamic “knowledge economy” skills—play in successful job seeking. Today, according to Department of Labor statistics, over 80% of new jobs will require computer skills. Past studies have shown that there is a great mismatch between adults entering the labor market and the technology skills that are required for work.

Along with high-speed Internet adoption, states need to address the issues ofdigital empowerment and digital opportunity. By funding community technology centers, residents can gain essential digital literacy skills, crucial work force training, increased utilization of alternative media and greater access to civic information. These technology literacy programs have the potential to bridge not only the digital divide, but the social and economic divide in states.

See Also:

WorkOne Employment Centers to offer digital literacy skills

Workforce Development & Community Technology Programs

Fund Community Technology

Strengthening the national network of community technology centers will create real-world technology training for the next generation. Community Technology (CT) is the purposeful use of computers, Internet, and digital communication systems by non-profit and community-based organizations to enhance the delivery of mission in a way that helps people develop technology literacy skills through beneficial, hands-on interaction with technology.

Some states such as California, Illinois and North Carolina, have established a fund or council to address the digital divide. Washington State has recently taken aggressive steps to increase digital literacy. The Washington State legislature allocated $500,000 to support Washington’s Community Technology programs. Senate Bill 6438 created a statewide high-speed Internet development process and established the Community Technology Opportunity Program (CTOP) that will provide resources for capacity-building for and grant-giving to Community Technology programs that provide hands-on technology access and training to residents. Additionally, the legislation calls for a work group to develops a high-speed Internet deployment and adoption strategy through a multi-sector work plan, as well as the development of a statewide web directory of public facilities that provide Community Technology programs.

In order to ensure residents obtain the necessary training to be successful in the 21st century, states should:

• Promote a healthy nonprofit community able to train and support low-income residents to participate in a digitally inclusive society.

• Promote computer donation programs.

• Promote an emergent, technology-enabled entrepreneur and small business sector.

• Ensure every child is technology-skilled to access, apply, as well as produce digital information in relevant and beneficial ways.

• Develop effective partnerships with aligned and interested groups, including business and private sector players, whose purpose is to support technology-related success within communities.

• Encourage the appropriate level of reinvestment of Telecom/Technology sector resources for digital inclusion, work skill training and related purposes.

See Also:

• Community Technology Center Start Up Manuel

• Community Connect Network

• Community Technology Opportunity Program

• Digital Inclusion Forum

Prepare children for the 21st century

Children are tomorrow’s workforce. Therefore, it is imperative that in their education, they receive instruction on necessary digital skills. In order to ensure that children from all backgrounds receive the necessary training to be able to participate in an increasingly digital world, states should promote digital skills as a priority for children. Digital literacy programs should be integrated into classrooms, after-school programs, and at libraries or other places children spend their time. In order to increase digital literacy among children, states should:

Equip children with digital tools at home. Provide financial incentives to help low-income families acquire home computers and affordable high-speed Internet; and encourage their use at home to pursue educational, health, and other opportunities for youth.

Support parents in today’s technology-based world. Support the development of model digital literacy efforts, and other technology training to help parents guide their children wisely in the online world.

See Also:

• PowerUp the Campaign for Digital Inclusion

• 21st Century Connections

Support Alternative Media

State money should support public access channels and alternative online media to amplify the voice of marginalized and under-represented communities in our democracy. Continuing support for public, educational and governmental (PEG) access channels, some of the only remaining media outlets that broadcast local voices and cover local issues, will allow for targeted programming by and for particular segments of the community that might not be served by major outlets. States should also teach residents how to utilize new technological mediums as a vehicle to be heard. Advances in high-speed Internet technology will open up ways for local communities to create online content, with dozens if not hundreds of audio and video streams. Unfortunately, much of the legislation being proposed in statehouses threatens the existence of such a potentially powerful local medium.

See Also:

• Time - Citizens of the New Digital Democracy

• Center for Digital Democracy

• Educause Paper - A Blue Print for Big High-speed Internet

• Center for Creative Voices in Media

Economic Development

Wide-spread adoption of affordable high-speed Internet can be a key tool to rejuvenate lagging economies and sustain state commerce. It is estimated that widespread adoption of high-speed Internet will add $134 billion to the U.S. economy annually and create 1.2 million new jobs per year. Further, high-speed Internet can be key to drawing new businesses to an area, no matter how remote or small. As evidence of the impact of high-speed Internet on individual communities, a recent study found that for every 1% point increase in state high-speed Internet penetration, employment is projected to increase by 0.2% to 0.3%. Further, the availability of high-speed Internet in communities added over a 0.5% increase in the growth of business establishments.

The following are a few programs working to leverage this economic benefit from high-speed Internet:

• One of the most successful programs in using technology to spur economic development has been the e-NC Authority. By investing in long-term projects related to high-speed Internet build-out and adoption, the program aims to create communities that can sustain high-value jobs and a greater quality of life through the creation of wealth on a local level. This includes grants for seven e-NC Business and Technology Telecenters, which serve as small business resource centers, providing business start-up counseling, low-cost office space and technological resources, in economically-distressed communities.

• Cedar Falls, Iowa saw an economic revitalization after building a municipal high-speed Internet network. A report by the Telecommunications Coordinator Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities stated, “[O]ne can not disregard the direct link between the “Dawn of a New Age” and the City’s ability to meet the increasing demand for access and dissemination of information... [o]ne of the best first steps toward acquiring economic well-being is to ensure that you have quality infrastructure including a first class high-speed Internet network.”

• Due to a broadband network built by Bristol Virginia leaders, two technology companies, CGI-AMS Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corp., built data centers in nearby Russell County that will create 1,500 good-paying jobs. They were attracted in part by the availability of OptiNet, an 800-mile fiber-optic network operated by Bristol Virginia Utilities (BVU).

• Lake County – a small county in central Florida –provides fiber optic connections to municipal offices, hospitals, doctor offices, schools and private businesses. Since opening their municipal network to businesses and municipal buildings, Lake County has experienced approximately 100% greater growth in economic activity–a doubling–relative to comparable Florida counties.

See Also:

• MIT/Carnegie national study “strongly” suggests connection between broadband and job growth
• Communications Workers of America - Speed Matters, Affordable High Speed Internet for All
• Connected Nation - The Economic Impact of Stimulating High-speed Internet Nationally
• S.E. Gillett, W.H. Lehr, C.A. Osorio - Measuring High-speed Internet’s Economic Impact,
• R.W. Crandall and C.L. Jackson - The $500 Billion Opportunity: The Potential Economic Benefit of Widespread Diffusion of High-speed Internet Access
• Educause White Paper - A Blue Print for Big High-speed Internet
• Black & Veatch - A Study of the Economic and Community Benefits of Cedar Falls, Iowa’s Municipal Telecommunications Network
• Virginia Business - Bristol Virginia Utilities fiber network is revitalizing SW VirginiaBristol Virgini
• Christian Science Monitor - High-Tech Brings Rural Towns Back to Life
• The Baller Herbst Law Group - Capturing the Promise of Broadband for North Carolina and America
• Telehealth

States can help make health care more accessible and affordable by utilizing modern day technology. By merging technology and health care, state policymakers can create new opportunities for medical professionals and patients to interact in more efficient ways. The use of technology in health care – often called telehealth – employs high-speed Internet applications to remotely monitor patients, facilitate collaboration between medical professionals, exchange medical data and images, and instantaneously provides efficient emergency service to remote areas. The potential benefits of telehealth include saving lives, increasing access to and quality of medical services, providing better treatment for chronic illness and reducing medical costs.

Although telehealth has been around for years, its promises have not been truly realized. The obstacles to achieving the full potential of telehealth include the lack of widespread high-speed Internet technology, the way in which Americans pay for health care, and how physicians are regulated by the government.
Key policies that address these barriers to the adoption of telehealth include:

• Build-out of high-speed Internet technology: While telehealth provides many benefits, such as transmitting detailed images, remotely monitoring patients at home, and utilizing advanced teleconferencing technology for collaboration, trainings, and patient visits, states need to support the deployment of sophisticated high-speed Internet services, something many rural hospitals and homes do not have, to gain from the benefits of telehealth. Last year, the FCC, recognizing the benefits of telehealth programs, allocated $417 million for the construction of 69 statewide and regional high-speed Internet telehealth networks. State legislatures need to invest in high-speed Internet deployment and take advantage of federal grants so that their residents can start to use advanced technological applications such as telehealth.

• Reforming medical licensing rules: Regulating health care professionals by way of licensure reduces the harm from inconsistent and negligent medical care, but also acts as a barrier to telehealth programs. State legislatures have oversight responsibility for medical boards, dictate medical practice policies and establish licensure fees. It is of utmost importance, that state licensure regulations and legislative policy support the provision of health care across state lines for telehealth services.

• Changing medical reimbursement policies: The absence of consistent, comprehensive reimbursement policies is another serious obstacle to the integration of telehealth into health care practices. For telehealth technology to achieve sustainability, states must require Medicaid, a significant payer for medical services, and encourage private insurers to develop standards for reimbursing providers for telehealth services.

Source: the.honoluluadvertiser.com

See Also:

• Progressive States Network - Telehealth: Merging of Technology and Medicine Leads to Improved Healthcare

• Bio-Medicine - Latest Studies Show Consumer-Directed Solutions Like Consult A Do Quality Health Care

• Center for Information Technology Leadership - The Value of Provider To Provider Telehealth Technologies

• Communication Workers of America - Telemedicine Helps Save Time and Lives in Smaller Hospitals

• Internet Innovation Alliance, Advancing Healthcare Through High-speed Internet-Opening Up a World of Possibilities

• Energy Savings

High-speed Internet can be a crucial tool in cutting Americans’ energy costs through promoting telecommuting and more efficient energy use at home and in the office. Interactive monitoring of homes and offices can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our carbon footprint while offering large economic payoffs.

For example, optimizing the management of energy supply and demand means a reduction in the likelihood of crippling regional blackouts or the need for keeping costly reserve power plants online. It is predicted that wide adoption and use high-speed Internet applications can achieve what many estimate is a net reduction of one billion tons of greenhouse gas over ten years, which, if converted into energy saved, would constitute 11% of annual U.S. oil imports.

States should promote telecommuting: High-speed Internet access is essential for enabling more Americans to occasionally work from home, commonly referred to as telecommuting. It is estimated that telecommuting may create over $20 billion of savings annually across the economy, by allowing businesses to save on physical space and related expenses and employees to spend less time commuting (better for environment and productivity). For example:

• Reduction in fuel use: If everyone with the potential to telecommute did so 1.6 days per week, the reduction in miles driven would save $3.9 billion a year in fuel and the time savings would be equal to 470,000 jobs – reducing our dependence on foreign oil, traffic congestion, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. Even incremental changes could have a huge impact. For every 10% increase in worker telecommuting, fuel use is projected to drop by 1.2 million gallons per week.

• Increase in worker productivity: Telecommuting has also been found to increase worker productivity by 20%-25%. When Cisco paid to have high-speed Internet installed in employees’ homes, the company traded wasted commute time for an extra hour of work each day. Other companies, such as AT&T and Merrill Lynch each saved $10,000 a year per employee through lower absenteeism alone.

A number of states are moving policies that recognize the benefits of telecommuting:

In Virginia, lawmakers codified the Office of Telework Promotion and Broadband Assistance, which aims to encourage telework as a family-friendly, business-friendly public policy that promotes workplace efficiency and reduces strain on transportation infrastructure.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson signed an executive order creating the State of New Mexico Telework and Alternative Work Schedule Program. The executive order called for technology improvements to increase productivity and support teleworking in State government.

Connecticut, Vermont, and New York considered legislation, which if passed, would have required states to study, develop or implement guidelines authorizing telecommuting and work-at-home programs for state employees or study the benefits and other impacts of teleworking.

States considering legislating telecommuting and alternative work programs should ensure that such policies are structured to protect workers against violations of overtime or other labor laws.

See Also:

• AeA - Telework in the Information Age: Building a More Flexible Workforce and a Cleaner Environment

• Joseph P. Fuhr Jr. & Stephen B. Pociask - High-speed Internet Services-Economic & Environmental Benefits

• Telework Coalition - Telework Benchmarking Study: Best Practices for Large-Scale Implementation in Public and Private Sector Organizations

• Consumer Electronics Association - The Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact of Telecommuting and E-Commerce

Reduce energy usage with smart technology: Interactive control of home appliances and their interaction with the overall power grid, can produce significant energy savings. Electricity that flows in the home and workplace are currently device-focused, so more precise control and “time shifting” can significantly lower demands on the power grid. Consumers could save nearly $23 billion a year if they shifted just 7 percent of their usage during peak periods to less costly times, according to research by Carnegie Mellon University.

With new technology, appliances can be turned off during periods of high electrical demand and give customers real-time information on constantly changing electric rates. The goal is to use advanced, information-based technologies to reduce consumers utility bills, increase power grid efficiency, reliability, and flexibility, and reduce the rate at which additional electric utility infrastructure needs to be built. States are promoting use of smart technologies and innovative utility pricing mechanisms are currently being used by several utilities in small applications, mainly for testing purposes.

• Under Illinois Public Act 094-0977, each electric utility must allow residential retail customers in the electric utility’s service area to elect real-time pricing, based on a successful pilot program in Chicago.

• Other states, such as Vermont, while not requiring smart metering, are analyzing the benefits of such a program.

• The Maryland state legislature enacted HB 374 which dictates that the Public Service Commission shall evaluate whether “smart meters” and digital automation of the entire power supply system, commonly known as “smart grid,” would be cost–effective in reducing consumption and peak demand of electricity in Maryland.

• The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has teamed with utilities in the states of Washington and Oregon to test new energy technologies designed to improve efficiency and reliability, while at the same time, increasing consumer choice and control. In the Olympic Peninsula, 200 homes are receiving real-time price signals over the Internet and have demand response thermostats and hot water heaters that can be programmed to respond automatically. The goal is to relieve congestion on the transmission and distribution grid during peak periods.

• The Hawaiian Electric Co., has been testing the technology since 2006, and expanded its pilot project in 2007 to approximately 6,000 more homes.

Source: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/images/ami_diagram_june06.

Create a Smart Grid: State leaders are increasingly focused on creating a smart energy grid, which would integrate advanced functions into state’s electric grids in the hope of reducing carbon emissions. These advancements will be achieved by modernizing the electric grid with information-age technologies, such as microprocessors and advanced computing technologies. Such changes will help the system “self-heal” during power disturbances or physical attack, accommodate alternative generation and storage options, and enable new services and markets.

See Also:

• 2002 Department of Energy report

• Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center - Impacts of Responsive Load in PJM: Load Shifting and Real Time Pricing

• Pacific Northwest GridWise Demonstration Projects

• Utilities See ‘Municipal Broadband Wireless Smart Grids’ as Best Way to Combat Rising Fuel Costs

• Smart Grid Provisions in H.R. 6, 110th Congress

Distance Learning

States should promote distance learning programs to increase educational opportunities for residents. With ubiquitous high-speed Internet access, students from any geographic location and income level can take advantage of otherwise unattainable educational and job training opportunities. One strong model was in Idaho where HB 543 was enacted in part to promote a statewide coordinated and funded high-bandwidth education network. Legislators hope, among other things, that the “Idaho Education Network (IEN)” can be a coordinated, statewide telecommunications distribution system for distance learning in each public school, including two-way interactive video, data, internet access and other telecommunications services. Further, the Idaho Digital Learning Academy (IDLA), a state sponsored, accredited, on-line virtual school created through the Idaho state legislature, is designed to increase educational opportunities and choices to all Idaho students regardless of learning ability, income, or geographic location. IDLA provides a high quality public school education, aligned with state achievement standards, utilizing the Internet and innovative educational methods of delivery.

See Also:

• United States General Accounting Office, Distance Education - Growth in Distance Education Programs and Implications for Federal Education Policy

• Idaho Digital Learning Academy

In an increasingly global economy, states struggle to decide which policies will encourage the growth of high-value local jobs and high-technology industries that can compete on the international playing field. Too often, state economic policy reduces to desperate bidding by states to offer tax subsidies to businesses that will relocate to their state, a failing strategy that usually accomplishes little other than draining state budgets.

Investing in 21st century broadband infrastructure is a far better use of public funds. States can capitalize on infrastructure build-out through local investments that nurture existing firms and local industry startups that, with the right support, can become the anchors of long-term economic growth. Technology transfers from local universities and community investments can tie together industrial “clusters” of firms that, in turn, can encourage the kind of long-term, high-value jobs needed in our communities to compete in the global economy. Further, by directing some of those investments to the “domestic emerging markets” of low-income communities and better coordinating overall economic development, states can assure that technology investments deliver economic prosperity for everyone.

Invest State Funds in Technology Startups

States are increasingly unwilling to rely on volatile global investment markets to spot local opportunities for growing new businesses, but instead are acting to directly invest themselves in technology opportunities. As of 2006, all but six states had state venture capital funds, putting $5.8 billion annually into in-state business ventures, according to the National Association Seed and Venture Funds (NASVF).

The great advantage of such direct investment is that, instead of just raiding the state treasury to give away corporate welfare, states can use such venture funds to create a financial stake in firms. If these businesses are successful, they will return equity to the taxpayers that can then be reinvested in additional firms. Such investments also can cement those firms in a web of local relationships that encourage broader spin-off effects for the local economy.

State venture funds come in a variety of forms, usually involving some combination of state investments, university involvement and cooperation with private firms.

• The Maryland Venture Fund (MVF) has been one of the largest venture funds, existing for ten years and investing over $48 million in more than 175 companies, usually at the startup phase when seed money was most crucial. The state has gotten back every dime it invested in the fund
  and it continues to invest in businesses with average salaries of $70,000.

• The Indiana Future Fund pulled together money from university foundations, local bio life-sciences companies and state pension funds to support six venture capital firms in Indiana. Just the $20 million invested by the state so far has leveraged $73 million in out-of-state funding for investments in local firms.

• Building on the model of a statewide venture fund created a few years ago, Ohio is now seeing a number of new funds: The NEO Venture Capital Fund in Northeast Ohio was created as a partnership between a number of local philanthropies to help draw in local and state funds with the goal of providing $375 million in local venture investments. The Central Ohio Entrepreneurial Signature Program (also known as Tech-Start), received an initial $15 million in funding from the state’s Third Frontier Program, and has already leveraged additional funds from local governments and businesses to create a $22.5 million three-year initiative.

An emerging key source of venture capital for such investments are state pension funds:

• Highlighting the gains from state pension investments, a new study on the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CALPERS), the nation’s largest pension fund, found the fund’s in-state investments had fed an estimated $15.1 billion in in-state economic activity in 2006 and created 124,000 jobs, more jobs than the construction or motion picture industries.

• Washington State now holds $1.4 billion in Washington-based investments, using the money to leverage additional capital from other sources to invest in the state.

• The New Jersey Division of Investment recently announced the New Jersey Directed Investment Fund, which will join pension fund investment with private-equity partners to support New Jersey-based firms and companies willing to expand state operations.

• Florida recently enacted an economic stimulus plan for the state that redirects $1.95 billion of the state’s pension fund into direct investments in Florida’s economy.

See Also:

• National Association of Seed and Venture Funds (NASVF) - Seed and Venture Capital: State Experiences and Options and Highlights of the 2006 State Venture Capital Program Study

• Maryland Venture Fund

• Indiana Future Fund

• William Greider - “The New Colossus” The Nation

• CALPERS - CalPERS - An Economic Engine

Encourage Technology Transfer from Universities

Many state venture funds are part of policy programs aimed at encouraging university research to spin-off into business startups and jobs in surrounding communities. As a National Science Foundation study recently emphasized, even smaller universities are playing a vital role in local job creation. Technology transfer licenses have doubled in the last 10 years and universities have had $1.6 billion in income from licenses to corporations and startups in 2005.

These local university ties can create businesses loyal to the local economy far more effectively than typical tax giveaways. States are using a number of tools to encourage technology transfer on a more regular basis, from creating dedicated tech transfer investment vehicles, to encouraging university research parks, to special tax credits related to technology transfer.

Dedicated Technology Transfer Investments: The Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO), was established by the Maryland General Assembly in 1998 to provide seed capital and business assistance to encourage technology transfer from research universities and federal laboratories to local startups. The program has been so successful that TEDCO was recognized as the most active early/seed stage investor in the nation in the July 2007 issue of Entrepreneur Magazine. Similarly, Florida has been investing directly in attracting new biotech research organizations, and Arizona has appropriated $135 million for five years of funding for the Science Foundation Arizona, which is aimed at leveraging state technology resources to spur innovation and new high-technology jobs.

Other regional groups, such as the Midwest Research Universities Network, help universities share best practices on working with venture funds to develop local technology transfer.

University Research Parks: 300,000 workers in North America are employed at a university research park and generate an additional 2.57 jobs in the broader economy, according to a report by the Association of University Research Parks. These research parks encourage businesses to take advantage of university research assets and employ university graduates, thus helping to nurture startup firms and ideally integrate them into the broader local economy.

Tax Credits for Technology Transfer: While many state tax credits end up being little more than corporate tax avoidance schemes, Oregon recently introduced a creative new approach– a 60% income tax credit for donations to state university programs that commercialize university research. A number of businesses have given donations to state universities based on the program. The bonus for the state’s taxpayers is that any credits that result in income for the universities through royalties and licenses will be repaid to the state, feeding an “evergreen” endowment to fund future tax credits and thereby limiting the long-term expense of the tax break to state taxpayers.

See Also:

• Innovation Associates and National Science Foundation - Technology Transfer and Commercialization Partnerships

• Science Foundation Arizona

• Midwest Research Universities Network

• Batelle and the Association of University Research Parks - Characteristics and Trends in North American Research Parks

• OR SB 582 and SB 853 - Relating to University Venture Capital Funds

Strengthen Industrial Clusters

Beyond supporting individual technology firm startups, states are increasingly looking to support interrelated “clusters” of firms that reinforce innovation in a region around specialized industries, much as the car industry grew up in Detroit, the film industry in Los Angeles, finance in New York City, and as a paradigm of the high-tech economy, Silicon Valley became a source of ongoing computer-related innovation.

States can play a critical role in promoting such clusters beyond supporting university research and funding new startups by identifying key local assets, facilitating relationships among firms, deepening the talent pool, and encouraging investments that reinforce those cluster needs—a point emphasized by the National Governors Association in a recent report, Cluster-Based Strategies for Growing State Economies,.

A recent example includes “life sciences clusters”, such as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s ten-year $1 billion Massachusetts Life Sciences Initiative and new hubs of “clean tech” alternative fuel clusters in Silicon Valley.

States need to avoid the danger of quickly endorsing the latest technology fad and handing out tax credits without real returns or accountability provisions, rather than carefully assessing their own local strengths and supporting the specialized industries
that can give their regional businesses a unique advantage in the global economy.

See Also:

• National Governors Association - Cluster-Based Strategies for Growing State Economies

Invest in “Domestic Emerging Markets”

Policy leaders should be critically concerned with using these new tools to revive areas devastated by deindustrialization and chronic poverty. Around the world, “emerging markets” are hotspots for investment, so many states are treating their low-income domestic areas as “domestic emerging markets” that just need a bit of patient capital in order to be revived.

Back in 2000, California State Treasurer Phil Angelides laid out the philosophy that is the basis for the new wave of tough-minded investment in “The Double Bottom-Line: Investing in California’s Emerging Markets.” Whether the investments are in high technology or in urban revitalization, these state investments deliver economic returns that are measurable on the financial bottom-line. One study found that eight large public pension funds had more than $3 billion invested in urban development projects, and have helped leverage private equity partners that have validated their economic returns.

State government and public pension investments are part of the broader trend of expanding investments in a range of community-based investment vehicles, from Community Development Banks to Community Venture Capital Funds, all designed to increase capital access in communities often starved for the financial capital needed to revive local businesses. The Social Investment Forum highlights the quiet revolution as the assets of community investment institutions have grown from $4 billion in 1995 to $19.6 billion in 2005, a growth of 388 percent in a decade.

In a multi-trillion dollar economy, even these amounts have not been enough to revive all of the communities undermined by deindustrialization and poverty, but their initial success and growth set an encouraging precedent for positive strides in
public policy.

See Also:

• Phil Angelides - “The Double Bottom-Line: Investing in California’s Emerging Markets (California Treasurers Office).

• Public Sector Pension Funds and Urban Revitalization: An overview of policy and programs

• Social Investment Forum - 2005 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States

Strengthen Regional Cooperation

Finally, states need to foster cooperation between local jurisdictions to ensure mutual gains from growth, not play a zero-sum game of wasting development dollars luring businesses to move a few miles. Good Jobs First in a series of reports, most recently on Minnesota and Michigan, has highlighted how funds are wasted as development dollars from wealthier suburbs are directed towards raiding jobs from urban centers rather than creating new jobs.

A number of efforts have been launched to encourage more cooperation in regional growth strategies.

In Northeast Ohio, the Fund for Our Economic Future was created by more than 100 foundations, organizations and individuals to work with state and local governments to overcome fragmented economic development in favor of more shared strategies for growth.

With $250,000 in federal grant help, the Golden Capital Network will establish eight regional networks of “angel investors” to support startups. “A lot of economic development activity is city versus city, or it is county versus county. This is a better approach,” said Sandy Baruah, U.S. assistant secretary of commerce, as he awarded the grant.

After bouts of destructive regional revenue loss as municipalities competed in business tax giveaways, Arizona in 2007 enacted HB 2515 to stop towns in Maricopa and Pinal counties from offering tax subsidies to move jobs around from other locations within the region.

See Also:

• Good Jobs First - The Thin Cities: How Subsidized Job Piracy Deepens Inequality in the Twin Cities Metro Area and The Geography of Incentives: Economic Development and Land Use in Michigan

• Progressive States Network - Reforming Failed Tax Subsidies

• General Technology Investment Resources

• Progressive States Network - Economic Strategies for Nurturing Innovation and Job Growth

• CFED - 2007 Development Report Card For The States

• States and Local Investments - Community-Wealth.org

• National Association of Seed and Venture Funds

• Steve Dubb & Gar Alperovitz - Building Wealth: The New Asset-Based Approach to Solving Social and Economic Problems (Democracy Collaborative & Aspen Institute)