Archive for the ‘media history’ Category

Wireless Cities Communities of Interests: Media and Wireless Communities

Tuesday, April 17th, 2007

Wireless Cities Communities of Interests: Media and Wireless Communities

The last paragraph of the entry linked above deserves reflection:

Finally it’s important to keep in mind the histories of media. For example, when television was introduced, it was seen as a medium with great potential for education and for creating communities. This is no longer seen to be the case. Radio too had a similar romance in it’s early days. Will wireless have a same fate?

If we are aware of this history, what pains must we take to break the pattern? Is there anything we can do to make sure promises made for the commonweal are kept?

Hitched to Hooze WagN at Grass Commons?

Sunday, April 8th, 2007

So much to say! I have been a fan of the Grass Commons vision (not to mention the team) for some time. So much so, I’ve recently joined their Board!

When I first learned of the vision to develop the Network of Integrated Consumer Knowledge – NICK I was stunned. It’s something we clearly need. I thought: how the heck are we going to get there? It takes some chutzpah to even dream this thing, but that is exactly what we need more of. And we do need NICK. Though it looks to be a long-range project, it may be better to think of NICK as establishing a standard and a technology for sharing consumer knowledge. That’s what I like about it. The Open API for Consumer Knowledge.

If that wasn’t cool enough, look at the underlying technology they have evolved in trying to bring this big vision to the world: WagN

They say Wiki + Tagg’n = WagN, and that’s a good mash-up style descriptor. But being a stickler for the evolution of our language and logic in these new worlds I wonder how we will describe it in the future when it is more natural to us…. when we are, let’s say, more fluent in WagN. And I do think we ought to think of these applications in terms of a grammar of what they make possible. We’ll leave that aside for now.

And then there is Hooze.

Hooze?

I don’t know.

Third base.

Abbott & Costello aside, Hooze will help us to know or remember who’s behind a product and that will help us mean what we pay as the Grass Commons saying goes.

the wireless voice and the great divide

Saturday, April 7th, 2007

While thinking about a panel on Digital Excellence and Community Internet that Sascha asked me to put together for the 2007 International Summit for Community Wireless Networks I was reviewing some notes I intended to blog from the previous one, held in St. Charles, near St. Louis, Missouri, and decided the story I had heard warranted a retelling.

I’ll neglect the niceties of transition and jump right to my notes:

Media tools have expanded in tremendous variety as a result of computing and the Internet. Collaborative and advanced communication tools are often not the first tools brought to communities when digital divisions are being addressed, but they are the most empowering because they are the tools of using one’s voice.

Let’s for a moment take “voice” literally, as opposed to metaphorically (as creative/expressive outlet)… to consider a wonderful example where quite the opposite occurred.

I’d heard part of the story before, as I am friends with communications technology activists who were directly involved in the efforts to bring community communications infrastructure and tools to the hurricane devastated gulf.

Harold Feld, of the Media Access Project, a DC group directly engaged in media policy advocacy at the national level recounted the story as a story of political heroism and to some degree one of civil disobedience.

I was caught up in the poetry of Feld’s closing address to our group, on the themes of Passion and Politics and the recovery of the positive in these themes and in their connection to each other, so forgive me for glossing things over and only offering a limited piece of what he was saying, and also if I blend the next series of points which really is an agglomeration of the sentiments expressed by several.

The main thing for me as regard to this conversation is that many people think of wireless in terms of computing and laptops… making life and work perhaps more flexible and comfortable for white-collar workers…. the image being people accessing their laptops for whatever purpose in a cafe.

Leaders in the wireless movement took it upon themselves to actively engage with the FCC and more directly in the effort to help others in the aftermath of Katrina. They got in their cars and went down to a staging area on someone’s farm and proceeded to deploy community developed wireless communications backbone equipment… not so people could use laptops at cafes but so people could use Voice over Internet services to contact friends and family – to reconnect – to let others know how they were.

Another person recounted the story of one of these wireless activists who needed to climb a tower, and a local sheriff whose entire communications capability was reduced to a 2-way radio… and the sheriff asked simply what the activist was going to do for him and his community… essentially, are you going to do something good for us?

Politics was set aside for a political act. The sheriff, understanding that this person was bringing telephony to an area where the communications infrastructure was wiped out was there to do something good. He said, of the tower and door, which they really didn’t have any permission to legally access… if it is locked, “I’ll shoot the lock off myself.”

Together they acted, in a political act… one not too dissimilar from civil disobedience…

These sorts of stories need to be told and retold. There are community level solutions to many problems, and some involve technologies that while advanced, are not terribly difficult to understand or deploy, and which have robust features and characteristics. The communities’ ability to respond in crisis is something that requires greater distribution of digital and technical literacy, but more than that it requires an understanding that we can act to our common benefit on many more areas of our life than we otherwise generally feel.

Moving on to one last example… a gentleman from India spoke eloquently on the importance of technology for communications among those with disabilities… thinking even of tools that voice enable applications or allow for alternate means of processing text, that this has benefits likewise for low-literacy persons… imagining that we have local community intranets replete with data of use to people…

These are all examples of community resources and potential resources that can be deployed and invested in on a local basis… and yet we are so little aware of these possibilities. These are media resources with social purpose: overcoming isolation and empowering people.

Diderot

Sunday, December 31st, 2006

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, Wikipedia, surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, and it is arguably the equal to that one (Britannica), I see it as only a matter of time before peer-produced independent media surpasses all the commercial offerings (can anybody name one that might compete, ok maybe in print, the NY Times, but that’s it)?

Gerry’s comment brought forth an echo from my recent visit to the Pantheon (Paris) where there is a statue to Diderot to the effect that the Encyclopedia paved the way for the social revolution…

So, now, the revolution of the Internet and a wiki-mode of participating in knowledge.

the ‘Net at Risk

Thursday, October 19th, 2006

David Isenberg has a great write up of the recent Moyer’s report “The Net at Risk” at WorldChanging

Newstips – Reform Group Challenges Rush Telecom Vote

Tuesday, April 25th, 2006

From:  Community Media Workshop: Newstips – Reform Group Challenges Rush Telecom Vote

The media reform group Free Press has called on Rep. Bobby Rush to abstain from voting on any bills that could benefit AT&T, the telecommunications giant whose charitable arm donated $1 million to Rush’s Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corp.

The AT&T donation to Rush’s charity was reported today in the Chicago Sun-Times.

“Rush must stay out of any votes that impact AT&T until investigators can get to the bottom of this apparent quid pro quo,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, a national media reform organization.

“We need to know if the congressman is selling his vote to AT&T and whether other members of Congress are participating in this kind of chicanery,” Silver said.

Rush is primary sponsor along with two Republicans — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Commerce Committee chair Joe Barton of Texas — of the Communications, Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which is scheduled for committee markup and a vote in the House tomorrow.

According to Common Cause, the COPE Act would place control of the Internet in the hands of a few powerful corporations, “transform the information superhighway into a toll road,” end consumer protections against abuses by cable companies, and expand the “digital divide.”

Lauren Coletta of Common Cause termed “baffling” Rush’s subcommittee vote against a Democratic amendment requiring cable companies to serve low-income rural and minority communities. “That’s obviously going to effect neighborhoods like Englewood negatively,” she said. “They’re not going to build out and invest in infrastructure in low-income communities” if they aren’t required to do so.

Michael Maranda, executive director of the Chicago Chapter of the Community Technology Centers Network, has urged Rush to reconsider his position on COPE, which he says will “open new dimensions of the digitial divide” and “give a green light to digital red-lining.”

Rush has not made a strong case for supporting COPE, said Bruce Montgomery, a local technology access activist and public access cable producer. Any benefits from the bill are outweighted by “much more onerous negatives,” he said — including national franchising for video companies that could undermine local control of cable franchises and support for community access TV.

(Last week Bill McCaffrey of the Department of Consumer Services told Newstips of the city’s concerns that the COPE act could vacate Chicago’s cable franchise agreements and remove requirements that all residents of a service area be served.)

Montgomery called for an extended public comment period and local hearings on the bill.

Mitchell Szczepanczyk of Chicago Media Action says he was “just furious” to learn earlier this month that Rush was sponsoring the COPE act. He had participated in a 1st Congressional District assembly on telecommunications reform in October and “we thought we had an ally” in Rush.

The bill “will be tremendously damaging to local media and the internet,” he said. “Unless it undergoes dramatic changes, it deserves to die.” Among his concerns is the loss of “network neutrality,” allowing internet service providers to determine what content will be available to customers.

From Peer to Tier: killing the ‘Net

Tuesday, April 4th, 2006

It’s probably better spell the whole thing out. Let’s think seriously about the Internet. If it’s just the ‘Net we run the risk of taking it for granted, as many of us do. What is the Internet, then? Do we have quite the same Internet as we did before Brand X? What will we have after the Telecom Rewrite? The stage is set for Whitacre Tiering. Another dimension of the digital divide comes into view. Angela Stuber makes the point well. It’s one piece of a larger issue: communities and communinty leaders have to define the terms with regard to the digital divide.

If the Internet moves from peer basis to tiered basis, should’nt we stop calling it the Internet? Should we stop calling it that now?

I began with a dramatic title: killing the ‘Net. That phrase is meant to bring people to awareness of the gravity of the situation. I’m more inclined to say it’s already done in some respects.

Back to basics… for those who undertand the fundamental character of the Internet: it ain’t what it used to be. As more and more join the Network it resembles itself less and less, and its clue-train promise becomes more distant. It’s not the numbers that are joining, or who they are. It’s how they are being joined to the Network, and on what terms. That is, it isn’t their fault, and they are unlikely to notice what has been broken or stolen.

The rallying cry for those who see it’s been broken or stolen is that we’re going to get it back or build a new one.

The latter is often stated with an underlying sentiment that the political game is already lost because it’s rigged or corrupt or sufficiently kafkaesque that the sane would do better pursuing other means. But we haven’t given up on politics yet. And you can’t kill this Internet idea. We will build it again if it comes to that.