4 ms·

I want to know more about the 800MM on "improving" Internet access. that seems absurdly high, even for one of the top three school districts in the nation (by s

• jv22222 12y ago
  I work in a k12 ed tech company. In most schools I've seen, by the time the internet gets to the users device, the quality of service is astonishingly bad. Even in schools that purport to have a big pipe coming in. Low bandwidth per user, bad access points, frequency clashing, broken switches, aggressive content filtering and firewalls all add up to making it really hard for a student to stream even one educational video from youtube. 5 students in the same class, forget it!
  • dinergy 12y ago
    We have none of those issues. We block Youtube because when opened students don't stream "educational" videos. They sit in the library watching sports, anime, and inappropriate content. Aggressive filtering, unfortunately, is a necessary evil because students are kids who, en mass, are irresponsible and make dumb choices.
• smackfu 12y ago
  It's not really Internet access, it's wifi. And wifi for a one-to-one deployment in existing schools gets pretty involved and expensive if you are doing it right.
• dinergy 12y ago
  Not really given size. We're a tiny district < 1K student body, and we've spent perhaps 1/4m on a infrastructure refresh; we deployed a new wireless network, replaced edge and core l2 and l3 switches, etc. Consider LA has 600K+ students across the district, multiple facilities, and tens of thousands of staff I would say that is on the low end of infrastructure costs. Our four site WAN runs > 30K/year, 100Mbps circuit is 24K, we're already at ~60K/y in operating costs. It is easy to see how 800mil on infrastructure is probably not enough.