Archive for the ‘semiotic’ Category

Practical, Pluralistic, Participatory, Provisional: Pragmatism

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Chip Bruce reviews david H. Brendel’s book Healing Psychiatry: Bridging the Science/Humanism Divide.

Chip highlights Brendel’s “Four P’s of Pragmatism” – offering an useful explication of the terms and their relevance to Pragmatism:

The first p, pharmacy website like this order practical, patient emphasizes pragmatism’s insistence on considering the consequences of any concept, pill to steer away from abstractions and idealizations that have no conceivable effects in our ordinary experience. The second p, pluralistic, reflects the fact that pragmatism is not so much one method or theory, but rather, an approach that considers any tools that may increase understanding, thereby achieving better practical consequences. It also reflects the assumption that interesting phenomena are unlikely to be captured within a simple category or single way of viewing. The third p, participatory, follows from the second in that multiple perspectives, Peirce’s community of inquiry, are needed to accommodate a pluralistic understanding. And the fourth p, provisional (cf. fallibilism), acknowledges that in a complex and ever-changing world, any understanding is subject to change as we learn more or as events occur.

Pragmatism is a major influence on my thought, and a strong influence on my community work. The four P’s work well for me, and are very appropriate to both the kind of science and the kind of civic life we need.

humor and experience

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, infertility so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, infertility so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, oncology so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, infertility so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, oncology so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, medicine so I only provide my reaction here, page and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, infertility so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, oncology so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, medicine so I only provide my reaction here, page and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, erectile based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, myocarditis by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1, site 400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.
Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, infertility so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, oncology so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, medicine so I only provide my reaction here, page and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, erectile based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, myocarditis by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1, site 400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, for sale based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, angina by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1,400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.
Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, infertility so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, oncology so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, medicine so I only provide my reaction here, page and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, erectile based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, myocarditis by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1, site 400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, for sale based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, angina by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1,400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, hospital based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1,400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.
Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, infertility so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, oncology so I only provide my reaction here, and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, medicine so I only provide my reaction here, page and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, erectile based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, myocarditis by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1, site 400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, for sale based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, angina by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1,400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.

I’ve got a new adage, hospital based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.

The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)

The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1,400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.

The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)

Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.

One may fail to see the humor of the situation for want of experience, discount another may fail to appreciate the experience (in a joke) for lack of humor.

It’s funny, recipe this occurred to me on today’s road trip… and all these variations are playing off of each other. Some stress the situation experienced, information pills others a statement on the situation. I’ll leave it to the reader to play with the permutations. Drop the parenthetic remark above, and some aspect of the sense changes, but both carry meaning, multiple meanings for me. The abundance and joy of polysemy.

XSLT as Mumonkan

Saturday, March 1st, 2008

From PR Newswire: Kabateck Brown Kellner, stomatology LLP :: Network Solutions Sued For Defrauding Millions

Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that’s netted the firm millions of dollars, viagra approved a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

Isn’t it time to eliminate the Add-Grace-Period (AGP), domain name front-running, tasting and the RGP? We certainly don’t need an AGP . Think about it in micro-economic terms… the cost of staff (or even personal) time to handle and follow up on a “refund” for a mistaken domain registration is a wash or potentially greater than the cost of the domain registration. Beyond that, there are tremendous benefits to Internet users at large in the potential reduction of domain name tasting.
From PR Newswire: Kabateck Brown Kellner, stomatology LLP :: Network Solutions Sued For Defrauding Millions

Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that’s netted the firm millions of dollars, viagra approved a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

Isn’t it time to eliminate the Add-Grace-Period (AGP), domain name front-running, tasting and the RGP? We certainly don’t need an AGP . Think about it in micro-economic terms… the cost of staff (or even personal) time to handle and follow up on a “refund” for a mistaken domain registration is a wash or potentially greater than the cost of the domain registration. Beyond that, there are tremendous benefits to Internet users at large in the potential reduction of domain name tasting.

Let’s think for a moment. Have there been any moments in your life when you have felt shame or disappointment at your/our country, physiotherapy or in reaction to the history of our country? is blind pride in the nation something to be praised, sildenafil or is it a fatal flaw?

Surely, in our history we as a people have committed grave errors, and errors and crimes have been committed in our name, even when without our consent (and sometimes without sufficient protest).

Our public servants, our brave citizen-soldiers pledge their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is not “my country right or wrong” – the Constitution, and the processes and balance of structures it defines (not enshrines) are founded in values. They are an expression of values – they contest with each other to guard against corruption and to establish firm foundation for the rule of law. Extension and upholding of the rule of law is the deeper question of our global civilization.

Dissent, it is said, is the mother of assent.

We must retain the freedom to criticize our government. These freedoms are enshrined in the founding documents of our nation. This is the deeper love I have for my nation, my people. This is what our soldiers defend, This is the love our people must share with the peoples of the Earth.

From PR Newswire: Kabateck Brown Kellner, stomatology LLP :: Network Solutions Sued For Defrauding Millions

Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that’s netted the firm millions of dollars, viagra approved a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

Isn’t it time to eliminate the Add-Grace-Period (AGP), domain name front-running, tasting and the RGP? We certainly don’t need an AGP . Think about it in micro-economic terms… the cost of staff (or even personal) time to handle and follow up on a “refund” for a mistaken domain registration is a wash or potentially greater than the cost of the domain registration. Beyond that, there are tremendous benefits to Internet users at large in the potential reduction of domain name tasting.

Let’s think for a moment. Have there been any moments in your life when you have felt shame or disappointment at your/our country, physiotherapy or in reaction to the history of our country? is blind pride in the nation something to be praised, sildenafil or is it a fatal flaw?

Surely, in our history we as a people have committed grave errors, and errors and crimes have been committed in our name, even when without our consent (and sometimes without sufficient protest).

Our public servants, our brave citizen-soldiers pledge their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is not “my country right or wrong” – the Constitution, and the processes and balance of structures it defines (not enshrines) are founded in values. They are an expression of values – they contest with each other to guard against corruption and to establish firm foundation for the rule of law. Extension and upholding of the rule of law is the deeper question of our global civilization.

Dissent, it is said, is the mother of assent.

We must retain the freedom to criticize our government. These freedoms are enshrined in the founding documents of our nation. This is the deeper love I have for my nation, my people. This is what our soldiers defend, This is the love our people must share with the peoples of the Earth.

I used Nader’s phrasing in a recent post. A little web checking points to auditory and conceptual confusion among half the media covering his Presidential bid. Some news sites reported ‘assent’ others ‘ascent’. Do a google search.

Did any member of the press ask Nader which he meant? (I assumed the former, illness myself.) They were probably too sure about what they heard and what they understood.

I enjoy polysemy, ask and find that both terms actually work. What did you hear? assent? ascent? a scent? a cent?

From PR Newswire: Kabateck Brown Kellner, stomatology LLP :: Network Solutions Sued For Defrauding Millions

Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that’s netted the firm millions of dollars, viagra approved a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

Isn’t it time to eliminate the Add-Grace-Period (AGP), domain name front-running, tasting and the RGP? We certainly don’t need an AGP . Think about it in micro-economic terms… the cost of staff (or even personal) time to handle and follow up on a “refund” for a mistaken domain registration is a wash or potentially greater than the cost of the domain registration. Beyond that, there are tremendous benefits to Internet users at large in the potential reduction of domain name tasting.

Let’s think for a moment. Have there been any moments in your life when you have felt shame or disappointment at your/our country, physiotherapy or in reaction to the history of our country? is blind pride in the nation something to be praised, sildenafil or is it a fatal flaw?

Surely, in our history we as a people have committed grave errors, and errors and crimes have been committed in our name, even when without our consent (and sometimes without sufficient protest).

Our public servants, our brave citizen-soldiers pledge their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is not “my country right or wrong” – the Constitution, and the processes and balance of structures it defines (not enshrines) are founded in values. They are an expression of values – they contest with each other to guard against corruption and to establish firm foundation for the rule of law. Extension and upholding of the rule of law is the deeper question of our global civilization.

Dissent, it is said, is the mother of assent.

We must retain the freedom to criticize our government. These freedoms are enshrined in the founding documents of our nation. This is the deeper love I have for my nation, my people. This is what our soldiers defend, This is the love our people must share with the peoples of the Earth.

I used Nader’s phrasing in a recent post. A little web checking points to auditory and conceptual confusion among half the media covering his Presidential bid. Some news sites reported ‘assent’ others ‘ascent’. Do a google search.

Did any member of the press ask Nader which he meant? (I assumed the former, illness myself.) They were probably too sure about what they heard and what they understood.

I enjoy polysemy, ask and find that both terms actually work. What did you hear? assent? ascent? a scent? a cent?

Lately I have been studying XSLT in a course taught by Wendell Piez. (Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) Transformations is a programming language for transforming XML source documents.)

Wendell offered a comment that if working with XSL is hurting, here you are probably approaching it in the wrong way. This applies to many other things in life, here certainly.

In the Mumonkan – the Gateless Gate – a collection of 48 koans, sickness the second koan is known as wild fox koan. Having recently reflected upon that koan at some length while thinking of the a-temporality of xslt, I’ve been reading some Zen into the programming philosophy behind XSLT. I’ve applied my own transformation to the question posed in the Wild Fox.

Shall the XSLT Master, applying templates with devotion, escape the law of temporal-causality?

It is worthwhile to think more about the FLOSS (free/libre open source software) context in relation to the Gateless Gate.

Truer than Truth

Thursday, January 10th, 2008

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

Excellent framing of consumption.

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

Excellent framing of consumption.

What’s a tasty domain? The domain you want! (and sometimes the domain you had….)

Slashdot points to an important story for those following Internet/ICANN policy issues.

Domain Tasting occurs through a nice set of loopholes in Internet domain name governance. Some feel that the market will eventually sort this out, approved and others think that this much abused policy is a nice perk of the industry.

Most tasting occurs in what is known as the ‘add grace period” (agp) … a window of 5 days in which a domain can be returned to the pool of unregistered domains, more about but tasting can also occur after a domain expires.

Tasting refers to determining whether the domain has value… value has some subjective dimensions here, but two rather reductionist perspectives narrow in on whether 1) a domain is likely to attract plenty of traffic (so that even when parked it can generate profit) or 2) there are parties who will pay a premium price for control of that domain. This boils down to “what financial value can be extracted from control or resale of the domain.

A domain name being held by a Taster may be returned to the pool of unregistered names before the grace period ends at no cost… (excepting the case of .org domains, PIR.org having instituted a nominal restocking fee to dis-incent this behavior.

Tasting connects to a number of behaviors that may be detrimental to the name system and against the interest of Internet users in general.

Tasting identifies domains which can be snapped up and taken from the unregistered pool and which can be made profitable to the owner, but largely useless to everyone else (i.e. more noise and unavailable to meaningful development). If it looks like a domain is likely to generate revenue that would cover the cost of buying it, it makes perfect sense for them to hold on to it.

We have domain holders interested only in what they can monetize out of the domain … we have registrars engaged in holding domains in the add-grace and redemptive-grace period… we have perpetual holding of domains in successive registration and dropping of the same domain within add-grace provision…

Value of a domain should be more than this narrow sense of financial return.

The value of domains to the informational commons (the Internet) should also be considered.

The add-grace period may have made sense in the past. The Internet community would probably be better without it, but following the PIR lead, restocking fees may offer a partial solution. It’s a strategy favored by many as a solution to tasting.

However, if tasting is but one aspect of the behaviors in the domain ecology we shouldn’t treat it in isolation. Unfortunately the ICANN policy process favors segmenting some important issues (tasting, kiting, etc.) This divide the issues and conquer strategy benefits certain constituencies at the expense of others and at the expense of Internet users at large (all of us).

If we got rid of the add-grace period entirely… what would be the disadvantage to that? Think about it: a domain registration isn’t a large expense. The value of the time spent by an end user in the process of registering a domain, and dealing with the registrar easily outstrips the registration expense. (Just calculate the time spent by a modest hourly approximation of earning potential of the person in question.)

If we are talking about any scenario that isn’t a bulk processing of domains, the end user’s time (and the potential time of anyone he’d have to interact with assuming even the slightest possibility of a non-automated interaction) it makes no sense to have the AGP at all! If you bought it you bought it… let there be a restocking fee or return it to the pool (with no refund) if you made a mistake and don’t want to develop it. In short it doesnt save any legitimate buyer any real expense to be able to return a domain during AGP. (imagine the hurdles just in dealing directly with the registrar)

And in the case of bulk processing of domains, what basis would there be for return of domains other than your tasting didn’t return signs adequate value?

So, again, what domain is really tasty? The domain you want. Who has an inkling you might want a domain? A registrar where you checked the availability of a given domain name. They’re in a privileged position if you don’t take the domain. They’re also in a very privileged position if you fail to renew your domain in time, and they stand to make a nice profit off what was once your domain in that scenario. They may even play you off against others all the while offering to act in your interest for a premium price.

But that’s another topic. Or is it?

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

Excellent framing of consumption.

What’s a tasty domain? The domain you want! (and sometimes the domain you had….)

Slashdot points to an important story for those following Internet/ICANN policy issues.

Domain Tasting occurs through a nice set of loopholes in Internet domain name governance. Some feel that the market will eventually sort this out, approved and others think that this much abused policy is a nice perk of the industry.

Most tasting occurs in what is known as the ‘add grace period” (agp) … a window of 5 days in which a domain can be returned to the pool of unregistered domains, more about but tasting can also occur after a domain expires.

Tasting refers to determining whether the domain has value… value has some subjective dimensions here, but two rather reductionist perspectives narrow in on whether 1) a domain is likely to attract plenty of traffic (so that even when parked it can generate profit) or 2) there are parties who will pay a premium price for control of that domain. This boils down to “what financial value can be extracted from control or resale of the domain.

A domain name being held by a Taster may be returned to the pool of unregistered names before the grace period ends at no cost… (excepting the case of .org domains, PIR.org having instituted a nominal restocking fee to dis-incent this behavior.

Tasting connects to a number of behaviors that may be detrimental to the name system and against the interest of Internet users in general.

Tasting identifies domains which can be snapped up and taken from the unregistered pool and which can be made profitable to the owner, but largely useless to everyone else (i.e. more noise and unavailable to meaningful development). If it looks like a domain is likely to generate revenue that would cover the cost of buying it, it makes perfect sense for them to hold on to it.

We have domain holders interested only in what they can monetize out of the domain … we have registrars engaged in holding domains in the add-grace and redemptive-grace period… we have perpetual holding of domains in successive registration and dropping of the same domain within add-grace provision…

Value of a domain should be more than this narrow sense of financial return.

The value of domains to the informational commons (the Internet) should also be considered.

The add-grace period may have made sense in the past. The Internet community would probably be better without it, but following the PIR lead, restocking fees may offer a partial solution. It’s a strategy favored by many as a solution to tasting.

However, if tasting is but one aspect of the behaviors in the domain ecology we shouldn’t treat it in isolation. Unfortunately the ICANN policy process favors segmenting some important issues (tasting, kiting, etc.) This divide the issues and conquer strategy benefits certain constituencies at the expense of others and at the expense of Internet users at large (all of us).

If we got rid of the add-grace period entirely… what would be the disadvantage to that? Think about it: a domain registration isn’t a large expense. The value of the time spent by an end user in the process of registering a domain, and dealing with the registrar easily outstrips the registration expense. (Just calculate the time spent by a modest hourly approximation of earning potential of the person in question.)

If we are talking about any scenario that isn’t a bulk processing of domains, the end user’s time (and the potential time of anyone he’d have to interact with assuming even the slightest possibility of a non-automated interaction) it makes no sense to have the AGP at all! If you bought it you bought it… let there be a restocking fee or return it to the pool (with no refund) if you made a mistake and don’t want to develop it. In short it doesnt save any legitimate buyer any real expense to be able to return a domain during AGP. (imagine the hurdles just in dealing directly with the registrar)

And in the case of bulk processing of domains, what basis would there be for return of domains other than your tasting didn’t return signs adequate value?

So, again, what domain is really tasty? The domain you want. Who has an inkling you might want a domain? A registrar where you checked the availability of a given domain name. They’re in a privileged position if you don’t take the domain. They’re also in a very privileged position if you fail to renew your domain in time, and they stand to make a nice profit off what was once your domain in that scenario. They may even play you off against others all the while offering to act in your interest for a premium price.

But that’s another topic. Or is it?

There’s a confessional book out on the New Hampshire “phone jamming” effort to impact the elections back in 2002. The author was interviewed on Democracy Now (Tuesday, generic Jan 8 2008). His work in New Hampshire and New Jersey under the direction of leadership is a emblematic of the most impoverished war mentality: winning at all costs.

Witness the two examples offered: first, the “phone jamming” … the overloading of the phone system at the NH democratic campaign offices embodies a straight-forward tactic in warfare, it amounts to taking out communications of your opponent. (Do you hear an echo of Sun Tzu?)

A second example, fits the category of psychological operations … creating pre-recorded messages simulating an automated phone message campaign of the democrats, republican operatives played upon racial fears and labor force insecurity by using minority voices/accents in NJ. Ugly rumors, manipulation of media messages, cultural stereotypes in the general school of low-rhetoric has become accepted. Impersonation of the opponent’s communications, and selective targeting of their likely supporters with divisive messages is significantly more calculated and abhorent.

(Other infamous moments in electoral history reek of the war mentality and speak poorly of our national politics: watergate – irangate.)

Party leadership (of any party) should not conduct itself in a manner beneath the dignity of our republic. Playing hard and playing to win – i.e. with determination – are not the same as winning at any costs. (We can debate this, but I think that even in war, we should not seek to “win at any cost”.) If in our politics we aim for a simple majority of the votes that are counted… partisan electioneers will tend to lose interest in a whole and healthy polity in the scramble for what amounts to a cheapened “victory”.

There’s a lot of room for criticism of our political system… winner take all appears much less attractive than proportional representation (beyond the two-party system), alternative run-off and consensus building paradigms.

Winning at all costs has a deleterious effect… it debases all involved. (But, as debasing as phone jamming and domestic psy-ops may be – challenging voter eligibility and undermining the integrity of the ballot system seem more nefarious. The former being a mean spirited and perhaps racially charged invoking of the letter of the law, the latter demoralizing those who might otherwise argue that our system works despite it’s flaws.)

I’m once again brought back to Kant’s maxim: never fight (a war) in such a manner that would preclude a future peace. I try to apply this at many layers of my life… personal relationships, issue advocacy, political rhetoric. It places one in a very different mind than the war profiteers and war mongers who are vested in perpetual domination and conflict.

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

Excellent framing of consumption.

What’s a tasty domain? The domain you want! (and sometimes the domain you had….)

Slashdot points to an important story for those following Internet/ICANN policy issues.

Domain Tasting occurs through a nice set of loopholes in Internet domain name governance. Some feel that the market will eventually sort this out, approved and others think that this much abused policy is a nice perk of the industry.

Most tasting occurs in what is known as the ‘add grace period” (agp) … a window of 5 days in which a domain can be returned to the pool of unregistered domains, more about but tasting can also occur after a domain expires.

Tasting refers to determining whether the domain has value… value has some subjective dimensions here, but two rather reductionist perspectives narrow in on whether 1) a domain is likely to attract plenty of traffic (so that even when parked it can generate profit) or 2) there are parties who will pay a premium price for control of that domain. This boils down to “what financial value can be extracted from control or resale of the domain.

A domain name being held by a Taster may be returned to the pool of unregistered names before the grace period ends at no cost… (excepting the case of .org domains, PIR.org having instituted a nominal restocking fee to dis-incent this behavior.

Tasting connects to a number of behaviors that may be detrimental to the name system and against the interest of Internet users in general.

Tasting identifies domains which can be snapped up and taken from the unregistered pool and which can be made profitable to the owner, but largely useless to everyone else (i.e. more noise and unavailable to meaningful development). If it looks like a domain is likely to generate revenue that would cover the cost of buying it, it makes perfect sense for them to hold on to it.

We have domain holders interested only in what they can monetize out of the domain … we have registrars engaged in holding domains in the add-grace and redemptive-grace period… we have perpetual holding of domains in successive registration and dropping of the same domain within add-grace provision…

Value of a domain should be more than this narrow sense of financial return.

The value of domains to the informational commons (the Internet) should also be considered.

The add-grace period may have made sense in the past. The Internet community would probably be better without it, but following the PIR lead, restocking fees may offer a partial solution. It’s a strategy favored by many as a solution to tasting.

However, if tasting is but one aspect of the behaviors in the domain ecology we shouldn’t treat it in isolation. Unfortunately the ICANN policy process favors segmenting some important issues (tasting, kiting, etc.) This divide the issues and conquer strategy benefits certain constituencies at the expense of others and at the expense of Internet users at large (all of us).

If we got rid of the add-grace period entirely… what would be the disadvantage to that? Think about it: a domain registration isn’t a large expense. The value of the time spent by an end user in the process of registering a domain, and dealing with the registrar easily outstrips the registration expense. (Just calculate the time spent by a modest hourly approximation of earning potential of the person in question.)

If we are talking about any scenario that isn’t a bulk processing of domains, the end user’s time (and the potential time of anyone he’d have to interact with assuming even the slightest possibility of a non-automated interaction) it makes no sense to have the AGP at all! If you bought it you bought it… let there be a restocking fee or return it to the pool (with no refund) if you made a mistake and don’t want to develop it. In short it doesnt save any legitimate buyer any real expense to be able to return a domain during AGP. (imagine the hurdles just in dealing directly with the registrar)

And in the case of bulk processing of domains, what basis would there be for return of domains other than your tasting didn’t return signs adequate value?

So, again, what domain is really tasty? The domain you want. Who has an inkling you might want a domain? A registrar where you checked the availability of a given domain name. They’re in a privileged position if you don’t take the domain. They’re also in a very privileged position if you fail to renew your domain in time, and they stand to make a nice profit off what was once your domain in that scenario. They may even play you off against others all the while offering to act in your interest for a premium price.

But that’s another topic. Or is it?

There’s a confessional book out on the New Hampshire “phone jamming” effort to impact the elections back in 2002. The author was interviewed on Democracy Now (Tuesday, generic Jan 8 2008). His work in New Hampshire and New Jersey under the direction of leadership is a emblematic of the most impoverished war mentality: winning at all costs.

Witness the two examples offered: first, the “phone jamming” … the overloading of the phone system at the NH democratic campaign offices embodies a straight-forward tactic in warfare, it amounts to taking out communications of your opponent. (Do you hear an echo of Sun Tzu?)

A second example, fits the category of psychological operations … creating pre-recorded messages simulating an automated phone message campaign of the democrats, republican operatives played upon racial fears and labor force insecurity by using minority voices/accents in NJ. Ugly rumors, manipulation of media messages, cultural stereotypes in the general school of low-rhetoric has become accepted. Impersonation of the opponent’s communications, and selective targeting of their likely supporters with divisive messages is significantly more calculated and abhorent.

(Other infamous moments in electoral history reek of the war mentality and speak poorly of our national politics: watergate – irangate.)

Party leadership (of any party) should not conduct itself in a manner beneath the dignity of our republic. Playing hard and playing to win – i.e. with determination – are not the same as winning at any costs. (We can debate this, but I think that even in war, we should not seek to “win at any cost”.) If in our politics we aim for a simple majority of the votes that are counted… partisan electioneers will tend to lose interest in a whole and healthy polity in the scramble for what amounts to a cheapened “victory”.

There’s a lot of room for criticism of our political system… winner take all appears much less attractive than proportional representation (beyond the two-party system), alternative run-off and consensus building paradigms.

Winning at all costs has a deleterious effect… it debases all involved. (But, as debasing as phone jamming and domestic psy-ops may be – challenging voter eligibility and undermining the integrity of the ballot system seem more nefarious. The former being a mean spirited and perhaps racially charged invoking of the letter of the law, the latter demoralizing those who might otherwise argue that our system works despite it’s flaws.)

I’m once again brought back to Kant’s maxim: never fight (a war) in such a manner that would preclude a future peace. I try to apply this at many layers of my life… personal relationships, issue advocacy, political rhetoric. It places one in a very different mind than the war profiteers and war mongers who are vested in perpetual domination and conflict.

I’m taking a course on storytelling. Although I have been involved in community informatics for several years as an activist and organizer on digital divide/digital excellence and community networking, resuscitator I found this work to involve the telling of stories and general reframing community and what we are about, more about or what is possible for us.

I was watching a video from the TED conference where Isabel Allende offered the old adage: What is truer than truth? The story. (Variants on this answer may be a matter of translation: Legend, Myth, Story, Narrative.)

I grew up on Grimm, and many mythologies… great preparation for an early encounter with Joseph Campbell via the Power of Myth (where Bill Moyers, another hero, interviewed him). I later made extensive study of semiotics and have an enduring interest in narrative, and the importance of story and discourse.

In recent years Italo Calvino brought me back to the play of stories/storytelling in the work of the OuLiPo — where art is craft that you work at each day, and good art or literature arises from finding the right combination of signs through experiment and experienced judgment.

Campbell’s work on myth and ritual, the idea of the story opening a path to greater truth than mere facts, or perhaps a greater truth in discourse around a story than in any particular telling or offering of an account, and the idea in Calvino that folktale is not myth degenerated but that myth arises out of folktale when the right combination his hit upon, these are all connected.

Storytelling is part of the natural and necessary repertoire of human behavior… it helps us cope and adapt as well as honor and remember. Though stories can be used to divide, their healing potential is critical in this moment. Our creative play can reconfigure our individuality and our collective life.

Common sense

Monday, May 14th, 2007

Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
We have had much talk of Guilds among the Emerging Futures Network (EFN): OGuild or the Open Guild, weight loss
the emerging Network Weavers Guild and Network, neurologist
and more.

I invite you to take share in a Vision, articulating Guild in (r)elation to Networking and Commons Perspectives which are among core values of the EFN.

Imagine a Guild as a Service-Leadership Collective, grounded in the ethical pursuit of a craft, and standing in relation to a Network of Practice.

Imagine a Concentric Commons: each Guild a Commons, encircled by a Network of Practice also as Commons, encircled at the widest level again by the greatest Commons for All of Us.

There is something striking in the relation amongst these Concentric Commons:

What is Good for All of Us is Good for each Network, and for each Guild.
What is Good for each Network is also Good for each Guild.
What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (got you there!)
What is not Good for each Guild cannot be Good for Network nor for All of Us.
What is not Good for each Network cannot be Good for All of Us.

This sets a high bar, indeed.

As Guild is related to craft and practice… i.e. activities we find useful in this world, we see that within the widest Circle, within the All of Us there are Many Guilds, and Many Networks. (Network offers a Filter and Map.)
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
We have had much talk of Guilds among the Emerging Futures Network (EFN): OGuild or the Open Guild, weight loss
the emerging Network Weavers Guild and Network, neurologist
and more.

I invite you to take share in a Vision, articulating Guild in (r)elation to Networking and Commons Perspectives which are among core values of the EFN.

Imagine a Guild as a Service-Leadership Collective, grounded in the ethical pursuit of a craft, and standing in relation to a Network of Practice.

Imagine a Concentric Commons: each Guild a Commons, encircled by a Network of Practice also as Commons, encircled at the widest level again by the greatest Commons for All of Us.

There is something striking in the relation amongst these Concentric Commons:

What is Good for All of Us is Good for each Network, and for each Guild.
What is Good for each Network is also Good for each Guild.
What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (got you there!)
What is not Good for each Guild cannot be Good for Network nor for All of Us.
What is not Good for each Network cannot be Good for All of Us.

This sets a high bar, indeed.

As Guild is related to craft and practice… i.e. activities we find useful in this world, we see that within the widest Circle, within the All of Us there are Many Guilds, and Many Networks. (Network offers a Filter and Map.)
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
We have had much talk of Guilds among the Emerging Futures Network (EFN): OGuild or the Open Guild, weight loss
the emerging Network Weavers Guild and Network, neurologist
and more.

I invite you to take share in a Vision, articulating Guild in (r)elation to Networking and Commons Perspectives which are among core values of the EFN.

Imagine a Guild as a Service-Leadership Collective, grounded in the ethical pursuit of a craft, and standing in relation to a Network of Practice.

Imagine a Concentric Commons: each Guild a Commons, encircled by a Network of Practice also as Commons, encircled at the widest level again by the greatest Commons for All of Us.

There is something striking in the relation amongst these Concentric Commons:

What is Good for All of Us is Good for each Network, and for each Guild.
What is Good for each Network is also Good for each Guild.
What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (got you there!)
What is not Good for each Guild cannot be Good for Network nor for All of Us.
What is not Good for each Network cannot be Good for All of Us.

This sets a high bar, indeed.

As Guild is related to craft and practice… i.e. activities we find useful in this world, we see that within the widest Circle, within the All of Us there are Many Guilds, and Many Networks. (Network offers a Filter and Map.)
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
In the recent national elections in France, thumb
there was a record voter turn-out of 84%.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
We have had much talk of Guilds among the Emerging Futures Network (EFN): OGuild or the Open Guild, weight loss
the emerging Network Weavers Guild and Network, neurologist
and more.

I invite you to take share in a Vision, articulating Guild in (r)elation to Networking and Commons Perspectives which are among core values of the EFN.

Imagine a Guild as a Service-Leadership Collective, grounded in the ethical pursuit of a craft, and standing in relation to a Network of Practice.

Imagine a Concentric Commons: each Guild a Commons, encircled by a Network of Practice also as Commons, encircled at the widest level again by the greatest Commons for All of Us.

There is something striking in the relation amongst these Concentric Commons:

What is Good for All of Us is Good for each Network, and for each Guild.
What is Good for each Network is also Good for each Guild.
What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (got you there!)
What is not Good for each Guild cannot be Good for Network nor for All of Us.
What is not Good for each Network cannot be Good for All of Us.

This sets a high bar, indeed.

As Guild is related to craft and practice… i.e. activities we find useful in this world, we see that within the widest Circle, within the All of Us there are Many Guilds, and Many Networks. (Network offers a Filter and Map.)
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
In the recent national elections in France, thumb
there was a record voter turn-out of 84%.
Whether public or private and whatever the scope, food there are three critical aspects to any communications or technology project:

  1. the ownership and business model, cure
  2. the state of the technology (physics/network/system considerations), and
  3. the purpose (or purposes).

Of course these aspects are interwoven, but each heading stands on its own, and we can determine a logical flow for project planning. We’ll need clarity on each, and anything less would be irresponsible.

Consider public communications initiatives such as municipal (or more accurately, city-wide) wireless and broadband networks as have been the focus of many cities and towns across the country, including Chicago.

The inconvenient truth about communications infrastructure (and other public technology) projects is that we’re horribly irresponsible about achieving the clarity needed in these three areas for a good outcome.

Our tendency has been to take the ownership and business model for granted (let industry do it!), to accept the technology on offer by the vendors, and to build a constituency for the network among different interest groups with claims that the network will meet their needs and desires.

We’re doing this bass-ackwards, we’re costing the people, the public, a lot of money (in aggregate, and individually), and we aren’t getting the reliability and functionality we should be getting from these networks.

Network purpose (or purposes) and character should be the logical driver of the process. Purpose should drive technology choice and together these should map out the options for ownership and business model.

We shouldn’t accept any limitation on the ownership/business model options without a deep and clear understanding of the network purpose and the sort of reliability, functionality and accountability that purpose demands. Too much effort is spent in debates and lobbying promulgated by the usual suspects, the purveyors of networks. Unchecked, each vendor’s biased agenda with respect to business model and ready-technology warps public deliberation.

All too often, American cities have closed the doors to viable ownership models as a result of lobbying and tactical rhetoric. To state the case more strongly: they do so at great cost to the public and to the commonweal; they do not serve our interests well, they do not proceed with clarity of public purpose.

What are the ownership models? We can build, buy, or rent. If we take business as our paradigmatic example, big businesses tend to build and buy their own networks whenever they can. Doesn’t it make as much sense for communities and for local governments to do likewise?

I’ve spent a lot of time arguing which of the three aspects should drive the other, and why the business-ownership model should not drive the process. Exploring the technology and the purposes of the network are a lot more work, but that is where we should be directing our attention.

I’ll only briefly mention that the range of technology options is more constrained by a policy regime then it is by the physics and network design.

The definition of network purposes is left as an exercise for your community.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
We have had much talk of Guilds among the Emerging Futures Network (EFN): OGuild or the Open Guild, weight loss
the emerging Network Weavers Guild and Network, neurologist
and more.

I invite you to take share in a Vision, articulating Guild in (r)elation to Networking and Commons Perspectives which are among core values of the EFN.

Imagine a Guild as a Service-Leadership Collective, grounded in the ethical pursuit of a craft, and standing in relation to a Network of Practice.

Imagine a Concentric Commons: each Guild a Commons, encircled by a Network of Practice also as Commons, encircled at the widest level again by the greatest Commons for All of Us.

There is something striking in the relation amongst these Concentric Commons:

What is Good for All of Us is Good for each Network, and for each Guild.
What is Good for each Network is also Good for each Guild.
What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (got you there!)
What is not Good for each Guild cannot be Good for Network nor for All of Us.
What is not Good for each Network cannot be Good for All of Us.

This sets a high bar, indeed.

As Guild is related to craft and practice… i.e. activities we find useful in this world, we see that within the widest Circle, within the All of Us there are Many Guilds, and Many Networks. (Network offers a Filter and Map.)
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
In the recent national elections in France, thumb
there was a record voter turn-out of 84%.
Whether public or private and whatever the scope, food there are three critical aspects to any communications or technology project:

  1. the ownership and business model, cure
  2. the state of the technology (physics/network/system considerations), and
  3. the purpose (or purposes).

Of course these aspects are interwoven, but each heading stands on its own, and we can determine a logical flow for project planning. We’ll need clarity on each, and anything less would be irresponsible.

Consider public communications initiatives such as municipal (or more accurately, city-wide) wireless and broadband networks as have been the focus of many cities and towns across the country, including Chicago.

The inconvenient truth about communications infrastructure (and other public technology) projects is that we’re horribly irresponsible about achieving the clarity needed in these three areas for a good outcome.

Our tendency has been to take the ownership and business model for granted (let industry do it!), to accept the technology on offer by the vendors, and to build a constituency for the network among different interest groups with claims that the network will meet their needs and desires.

We’re doing this bass-ackwards, we’re costing the people, the public, a lot of money (in aggregate, and individually), and we aren’t getting the reliability and functionality we should be getting from these networks.

Network purpose (or purposes) and character should be the logical driver of the process. Purpose should drive technology choice and together these should map out the options for ownership and business model.

We shouldn’t accept any limitation on the ownership/business model options without a deep and clear understanding of the network purpose and the sort of reliability, functionality and accountability that purpose demands. Too much effort is spent in debates and lobbying promulgated by the usual suspects, the purveyors of networks. Unchecked, each vendor’s biased agenda with respect to business model and ready-technology warps public deliberation.

All too often, American cities have closed the doors to viable ownership models as a result of lobbying and tactical rhetoric. To state the case more strongly: they do so at great cost to the public and to the commonweal; they do not serve our interests well, they do not proceed with clarity of public purpose.

What are the ownership models? We can build, buy, or rent. If we take business as our paradigmatic example, big businesses tend to build and buy their own networks whenever they can. Doesn’t it make as much sense for communities and for local governments to do likewise?

I’ve spent a lot of time arguing which of the three aspects should drive the other, and why the business-ownership model should not drive the process. Exploring the technology and the purposes of the network are a lot more work, but that is where we should be directing our attention.

I’ll only briefly mention that the range of technology options is more constrained by a policy regime then it is by the physics and network design.

The definition of network purposes is left as an exercise for your community.
Total Cost of Ownership – TCO – is a great throwaway phrase. In the context of city-wide communications networks (wireless or otherwise), doctor we need to know what we are really paying (collectively) and what we really “own”.

First and foremost: Let it really be about ownership and not rents.

Cities are buying the meaningless phraseology of public-private partnership hook line and sinker. We’re so afraid of our shadows we can’t make a proper public investment in anything, this site anymore.

Most cities foreclose a host of business/ownership models before fully determining the purposes they want their network to serve.

This is backwards. It makes no sense.

But the question here is dollars and cents. Why are we so afraid to invest?

Our nation was built in a series of major public investments.

Is the problem public innumeracy? How often does the phrase no public dollars get uttered in the context of city-wide networks?

In terms of public dollars being spent (or not), ailment there are two points to consider:

  • will the city buy services on this network?
  • how much will the general public be spending on network services?

Clearly, if the city makes significant use of a network it doesn’t own and there is no competition to speak of, tax-payers are supporting the network. If tax-payers are going to support the network, will they be well served by the network?

Would the public be better served under a model of municipal or non-profit ownership than under a vendor driven model? Would it not be cheaper in the long-run and in the aggregate for tax-payers or rate-payers to buy into a true muni or community model?

Perhaps the biggest question is this: if our civic leaders are so gung-ho about business models, shouldn’t we apply the proven experience of the sharper business minds? Big business knows what makes financial sense: if you can afford to buy your own network, you build/buy it. You don’t rent (for long).
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
We have had much talk of Guilds among the Emerging Futures Network (EFN): OGuild or the Open Guild, weight loss
the emerging Network Weavers Guild and Network, neurologist
and more.

I invite you to take share in a Vision, articulating Guild in (r)elation to Networking and Commons Perspectives which are among core values of the EFN.

Imagine a Guild as a Service-Leadership Collective, grounded in the ethical pursuit of a craft, and standing in relation to a Network of Practice.

Imagine a Concentric Commons: each Guild a Commons, encircled by a Network of Practice also as Commons, encircled at the widest level again by the greatest Commons for All of Us.

There is something striking in the relation amongst these Concentric Commons:

What is Good for All of Us is Good for each Network, and for each Guild.
What is Good for each Network is also Good for each Guild.
What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (got you there!)
What is not Good for each Guild cannot be Good for Network nor for All of Us.
What is not Good for each Network cannot be Good for All of Us.

This sets a high bar, indeed.

As Guild is related to craft and practice… i.e. activities we find useful in this world, we see that within the widest Circle, within the All of Us there are Many Guilds, and Many Networks. (Network offers a Filter and Map.)
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
In the recent national elections in France, thumb
there was a record voter turn-out of 84%.
Whether public or private and whatever the scope, food there are three critical aspects to any communications or technology project:

  1. the ownership and business model, cure
  2. the state of the technology (physics/network/system considerations), and
  3. the purpose (or purposes).

Of course these aspects are interwoven, but each heading stands on its own, and we can determine a logical flow for project planning. We’ll need clarity on each, and anything less would be irresponsible.

Consider public communications initiatives such as municipal (or more accurately, city-wide) wireless and broadband networks as have been the focus of many cities and towns across the country, including Chicago.

The inconvenient truth about communications infrastructure (and other public technology) projects is that we’re horribly irresponsible about achieving the clarity needed in these three areas for a good outcome.

Our tendency has been to take the ownership and business model for granted (let industry do it!), to accept the technology on offer by the vendors, and to build a constituency for the network among different interest groups with claims that the network will meet their needs and desires.

We’re doing this bass-ackwards, we’re costing the people, the public, a lot of money (in aggregate, and individually), and we aren’t getting the reliability and functionality we should be getting from these networks.

Network purpose (or purposes) and character should be the logical driver of the process. Purpose should drive technology choice and together these should map out the options for ownership and business model.

We shouldn’t accept any limitation on the ownership/business model options without a deep and clear understanding of the network purpose and the sort of reliability, functionality and accountability that purpose demands. Too much effort is spent in debates and lobbying promulgated by the usual suspects, the purveyors of networks. Unchecked, each vendor’s biased agenda with respect to business model and ready-technology warps public deliberation.

All too often, American cities have closed the doors to viable ownership models as a result of lobbying and tactical rhetoric. To state the case more strongly: they do so at great cost to the public and to the commonweal; they do not serve our interests well, they do not proceed with clarity of public purpose.

What are the ownership models? We can build, buy, or rent. If we take business as our paradigmatic example, big businesses tend to build and buy their own networks whenever they can. Doesn’t it make as much sense for communities and for local governments to do likewise?

I’ve spent a lot of time arguing which of the three aspects should drive the other, and why the business-ownership model should not drive the process. Exploring the technology and the purposes of the network are a lot more work, but that is where we should be directing our attention.

I’ll only briefly mention that the range of technology options is more constrained by a policy regime then it is by the physics and network design.

The definition of network purposes is left as an exercise for your community.
Total Cost of Ownership – TCO – is a great throwaway phrase. In the context of city-wide communications networks (wireless or otherwise), doctor we need to know what we are really paying (collectively) and what we really “own”.

First and foremost: Let it really be about ownership and not rents.

Cities are buying the meaningless phraseology of public-private partnership hook line and sinker. We’re so afraid of our shadows we can’t make a proper public investment in anything, this site anymore.

Most cities foreclose a host of business/ownership models before fully determining the purposes they want their network to serve.

This is backwards. It makes no sense.

But the question here is dollars and cents. Why are we so afraid to invest?

Our nation was built in a series of major public investments.

Is the problem public innumeracy? How often does the phrase no public dollars get uttered in the context of city-wide networks?

In terms of public dollars being spent (or not), ailment there are two points to consider:

  • will the city buy services on this network?
  • how much will the general public be spending on network services?

Clearly, if the city makes significant use of a network it doesn’t own and there is no competition to speak of, tax-payers are supporting the network. If tax-payers are going to support the network, will they be well served by the network?

Would the public be better served under a model of municipal or non-profit ownership than under a vendor driven model? Would it not be cheaper in the long-run and in the aggregate for tax-payers or rate-payers to buy into a true muni or community model?

Perhaps the biggest question is this: if our civic leaders are so gung-ho about business models, shouldn’t we apply the proven experience of the sharper business minds? Big business knows what makes financial sense: if you can afford to buy your own network, you build/buy it. You don’t rent (for long).
Total Cost of Ownership – TCO – is a great throwaway phrase. In the context of city-wide communications networks (wireless or otherwise), doctor we need to know what we are really paying (collectively) and what we really “own”.

First and foremost: Let it really be about ownership and not rents.

Cities are buying the meaningless phraseology of public-private partnership hook line and sinker. We’re so afraid of our shadows we can’t make a proper public investment in anything, this site anymore.

Most cities foreclose a host of business/ownership models before fully determining the purposes they want their network to serve.

This is backwards. It makes no sense.

But the question here is dollars and cents. Why are we so afraid to invest?

Our nation was built in a series of major public investments.

Is the problem public innumeracy? How often does the phrase no public dollars get uttered in the context of city-wide networks?

In terms of public dollars being spent (or not), ailment there are two points to consider:

  • will the city buy services on this network?
  • how much will the general public be spending on network services?

Clearly, if the city makes significant use of a network it doesn’t own and there is no competition to speak of, tax-payers are supporting the network. If tax-payers are going to support the network, will they be well served by the network?

Would the public be better served under a model of municipal or non-profit ownership than under a vendor driven model? Would it not be cheaper in the long-run and in the aggregate for tax-payers or rate-payers to buy into a true muni or community model?

Perhaps the biggest question is this: if our civic leaders are so gung-ho about business models, shouldn’t we apply the proven experience of the sharper business minds? Big business knows what makes financial sense: if you can afford to buy your own network, you build/buy it. You don’t rent (for long).
Mitchell Szczepanczyk interviews Jamie Kalven of the Invisible Institute/View From the Ground on The Ministry of Truth radio broadcast:

The Ministry of Truth: Interview with Jamie Kalven from View From The Ground (part 1 of 2) Radio, web
April 19, 2007

The Ministry of Truth: Interview with Jamie Kalven from View From The Ground (part 2 of 2) Radio, April 26, 2007

Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
Here are some video interviews I’ve conducted.
We have had much talk of Guilds among the Emerging Futures Network (EFN): OGuild or the Open Guild, weight loss
the emerging Network Weavers Guild and Network, neurologist
and more.

I invite you to take share in a Vision, articulating Guild in (r)elation to Networking and Commons Perspectives which are among core values of the EFN.

Imagine a Guild as a Service-Leadership Collective, grounded in the ethical pursuit of a craft, and standing in relation to a Network of Practice.

Imagine a Concentric Commons: each Guild a Commons, encircled by a Network of Practice also as Commons, encircled at the widest level again by the greatest Commons for All of Us.

There is something striking in the relation amongst these Concentric Commons:

What is Good for All of Us is Good for each Network, and for each Guild.
What is Good for each Network is also Good for each Guild.
What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (got you there!)
What is not Good for each Guild cannot be Good for Network nor for All of Us.
What is not Good for each Network cannot be Good for All of Us.

This sets a high bar, indeed.

As Guild is related to craft and practice… i.e. activities we find useful in this world, we see that within the widest Circle, within the All of Us there are Many Guilds, and Many Networks. (Network offers a Filter and Map.)
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
Originally written as a response to Ron May’s account of our panel at ilCTC Conference:

As one of the co-moderators of the “First Mile/Last Mile” panel at the recent Illinois Community Technology Conference in Hyde Park, rx I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify some of the discussion you described for your readers.

Our panel (co-moderated by Phil Maclin and myself) addressed the issue of providing connectivity to communities (residents and businesses) through a variety of strategies. The general mode of speaking about these issues is as the “last mile”…

Following our penchant for turning things around we (without originality in this) wanted to emphasize that from a community perspective this is the first mile, pill not the last mile.

The panelists assembled represented some of the leading doers and thinkers in Illinois on these matters. (Sascha Meinrath, principal organizer of Community Wireless Networking Summit and head of the CUWiN project, Nicole Friedman of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Peter and Annie Collins,leading advocates in the Municpal Fiber movement, and the prolific James Carlini.

The panelists addressed strategies for communities to take their connective destiny into their own hands. I think we can all agree that internet connectivity is a community asset that is valuable for our economic development, whether we speak of a neighborhood, a municipality or our region (dare we say the entire State?).

As Carlini points out, quite rightly, this is not just a matter for the civic minded. It makes great business sense. Take his example of housing developers. If a business or even a savvy potential resident does a search for property and selects for certain criteria including broadband availability we can see a seacrh narrow from 140 to a handful. If you are marketing your property, do you want to be in the handful, or do you want to be in the less desirable majority?

This issue scales to communities and municipalities.

Many writers and activists can point to other countries that are enacting policies that demonstrate they get this. We’re talking about fiber capacity to the home, not copper.

But back to our conference and the battle hardened panelists we assembled.

The communities we are concerned with don’t even have adequate copper capability or choice for high speed access, and its more than evident that the incumbent carriers are more interested in investing in fiber where they can obtain maximum profit before they will extend any copper (or better service) to the under-served commuities.

If anyone needs data on this, I refer you to the report issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council earlier this year. The report merely codified what we already know. But the point was to make the case in terms of regional economic development as opposed to helping the disadvantaged cross the digital divide.

I’ll get to my point of correction. Ron cited me as source on something, but the info presented was inaccurate. The point of controversy during the discussion was prompted by the question of “war driving” and the general issue of security and wireless networks. The originator of the controversy was not Stel V. of OnShore.

The dispute centered upon the disposition or motives of people that identify wireless networks or clouds, and whether or not they are secure.

While Security should be an issue for anyone in the networking world, there are different degrees of security needed in different contexts, and in some cases there may be reasons (or intention) to provide open access.

The controversy over motives came up as Andy Carra was about to describe the pro bono work of wiggle.net.

The gentlemen of Wiggle.Net have documented and mapped data regarding networks detected in the wilds of Chicago, and reported in to their site.

If you go to their website you will be able to search for any locality in the Chicago area and see what wireless networks have been detected.

Many people purchase a wireless device to establish a wireless home network, but dont even bother to set basic security protocols. Perhaps if you go to the wiggle.net site you’ll find your own network listed, and whether its open or not. Maybe you want it to be open and you like the idea of sharing your connection with your neighbors. Thats part of the idea of the wireless community networking movement. In Homans Square we witnessed the launch of the Wireless Community Networks project (WCN) of the Center for Neighborhood Technology not quite 2 months ago. This is a federally funded project (under the Dept of Commerce) and is intended as a pilot project. It’s a great example of doing our innovation in the communities that are less likely to be served by the latest and greatest technologies by the for-profit corporations.

The CNT project is piloting the WCN in four areas: Homans Square, Pilsen, Elgin and W. Frankfort.

Illinois is the center for plenty of innovation. The CUWiN project is developing wireless mesh technology that will facilitate deployment of community wireless networks along a mesh topology. They’re already in operation, and the technical innovations are being watched closely, not least by those in Chicago.

I believe that the CNT project and the community volunteer project “chifi.net” are seeking to develop strategies to expand the footprint and impact of the TOP project leveraging developments in the CUWiN software.

This is all to the point of there being a role for (or willingness to) sharing access to wireless networks.

This is not to say that the incumbent providers are ok with this. The cable companies aren’t even very happy about residents using the internet connection with more than one PC in their own homes, let alone sharing outside with others, intentionally or not. Likewise for the major telecom providers. Some ISP’s are happy for their customers to share their bandwidth. Why?

Because they believe that ultimately the customer will want to buy more bandwidth. Makes sense to me.

As to whether some war driving is malicious.. I tend to doubt that very much of it is done in such spirit.

Thats not to say that security isn’t an issue. If you have something to protect, its incumbent upon you to take measures to protect it. But there are definitely ways to share access that is relatively secure… you can protect part of your network with proper routing/firewall settings… and there are definitely reasons to want to share access.

I hope this alleviates some of the question of controversy for our panel, and perhaps some of the participants or readers would like to weigh in on this topic.

I just wanted to set the record straight and say that war driving as documented by the guys of wiggle.net can be a public service for people seeking access to intentionally open networks and for people checking to see if their network was detected as open (and perhaps they didnt realize it).

Security is everyone’s concern, but I note the majority of attacks are coming through my wired lines, and through trojan horses and other malicious code.

But the emphasis of the panel was mainly on the bulk of what Iwrote at the beginning of this message, and what I hope we can take away from this is the question of when our region will begin to think in terms of strategic investment, associating broadband deployment with economic development, and with regard to keeping the talent and technologies we are developing in Illinois productive in this state.

I’d like to advocate for something else that came out of the conference: we need every community in Illinois connected with relatively high speed access, and we need to require a base line of service delivery and quality for all communities that is in accord with regional and nationally competitive priorities.

Chicago needs a plan of action to surpass memory that never happened in Civic Net, and Illinois needs an investment and community economic development strategy that encourages high tech start-ups and small businesses.

Ron, sorry about the last bit of diatribe. I know I am somewhat echoing your basic thesis that the surrounding states have gotten something together and we havent.

As a closing point, I’d like to appreciate Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Rep. Connie Howard, two figures that get community technology’s importance for Illinois. I’m still awaiting word on who or when we will have a Technology person in the Governor’s office making some waves that will carry us forward.

Regards,

Michael Maranda

CTCNet Chicago, Board President

AFCN, President-Elect
In the recent national elections in France, thumb
there was a record voter turn-out of 84%.
Whether public or private and whatever the scope, food there are three critical aspects to any communications or technology project:

  1. the ownership and business model, cure
  2. the state of the technology (physics/network/system considerations), and
  3. the purpose (or purposes).

Of course these aspects are interwoven, but each heading stands on its own, and we can determine a logical flow for project planning. We’ll need clarity on each, and anything less would be irresponsible.

Consider public communications initiatives such as municipal (or more accurately, city-wide) wireless and broadband networks as have been the focus of many cities and towns across the country, including Chicago.

The inconvenient truth about communications infrastructure (and other public technology) projects is that we’re horribly irresponsible about achieving the clarity needed in these three areas for a good outcome.

Our tendency has been to take the ownership and business model for granted (let industry do it!), to accept the technology on offer by the vendors, and to build a constituency for the network among different interest groups with claims that the network will meet their needs and desires.

We’re doing this bass-ackwards, we’re costing the people, the public, a lot of money (in aggregate, and individually), and we aren’t getting the reliability and functionality we should be getting from these networks.

Network purpose (or purposes) and character should be the logical driver of the process. Purpose should drive technology choice and together these should map out the options for ownership and business model.

We shouldn’t accept any limitation on the ownership/business model options without a deep and clear understanding of the network purpose and the sort of reliability, functionality and accountability that purpose demands. Too much effort is spent in debates and lobbying promulgated by the usual suspects, the purveyors of networks. Unchecked, each vendor’s biased agenda with respect to business model and ready-technology warps public deliberation.

All too often, American cities have closed the doors to viable ownership models as a result of lobbying and tactical rhetoric. To state the case more strongly: they do so at great cost to the public and to the commonweal; they do not serve our interests well, they do not proceed with clarity of public purpose.

What are the ownership models? We can build, buy, or rent. If we take business as our paradigmatic example, big businesses tend to build and buy their own networks whenever they can. Doesn’t it make as much sense for communities and for local governments to do likewise?

I’ve spent a lot of time arguing which of the three aspects should drive the other, and why the business-ownership model should not drive the process. Exploring the technology and the purposes of the network are a lot more work, but that is where we should be directing our attention.

I’ll only briefly mention that the range of technology options is more constrained by a policy regime then it is by the physics and network design.

The definition of network purposes is left as an exercise for your community.
Total Cost of Ownership – TCO – is a great throwaway phrase. In the context of city-wide communications networks (wireless or otherwise), doctor we need to know what we are really paying (collectively) and what we really “own”.

First and foremost: Let it really be about ownership and not rents.

Cities are buying the meaningless phraseology of public-private partnership hook line and sinker. We’re so afraid of our shadows we can’t make a proper public investment in anything, this site anymore.

Most cities foreclose a host of business/ownership models before fully determining the purposes they want their network to serve.

This is backwards. It makes no sense.

But the question here is dollars and cents. Why are we so afraid to invest?

Our nation was built in a series of major public investments.

Is the problem public innumeracy? How often does the phrase no public dollars get uttered in the context of city-wide networks?

In terms of public dollars being spent (or not), ailment there are two points to consider:

  • will the city buy services on this network?
  • how much will the general public be spending on network services?

Clearly, if the city makes significant use of a network it doesn’t own and there is no competition to speak of, tax-payers are supporting the network. If tax-payers are going to support the network, will they be well served by the network?

Would the public be better served under a model of municipal or non-profit ownership than under a vendor driven model? Would it not be cheaper in the long-run and in the aggregate for tax-payers or rate-payers to buy into a true muni or community model?

Perhaps the biggest question is this: if our civic leaders are so gung-ho about business models, shouldn’t we apply the proven experience of the sharper business minds? Big business knows what makes financial sense: if you can afford to buy your own network, you build/buy it. You don’t rent (for long).
Total Cost of Ownership – TCO – is a great throwaway phrase. In the context of city-wide communications networks (wireless or otherwise), doctor we need to know what we are really paying (collectively) and what we really “own”.

First and foremost: Let it really be about ownership and not rents.

Cities are buying the meaningless phraseology of public-private partnership hook line and sinker. We’re so afraid of our shadows we can’t make a proper public investment in anything, this site anymore.

Most cities foreclose a host of business/ownership models before fully determining the purposes they want their network to serve.

This is backwards. It makes no sense.

But the question here is dollars and cents. Why are we so afraid to invest?

Our nation was built in a series of major public investments.

Is the problem public innumeracy? How often does the phrase no public dollars get uttered in the context of city-wide networks?

In terms of public dollars being spent (or not), ailment there are two points to consider:

  • will the city buy services on this network?
  • how much will the general public be spending on network services?

Clearly, if the city makes significant use of a network it doesn’t own and there is no competition to speak of, tax-payers are supporting the network. If tax-payers are going to support the network, will they be well served by the network?

Would the public be better served under a model of municipal or non-profit ownership than under a vendor driven model? Would it not be cheaper in the long-run and in the aggregate for tax-payers or rate-payers to buy into a true muni or community model?

Perhaps the biggest question is this: if our civic leaders are so gung-ho about business models, shouldn’t we apply the proven experience of the sharper business minds? Big business knows what makes financial sense: if you can afford to buy your own network, you build/buy it. You don’t rent (for long).
Mitchell Szczepanczyk interviews Jamie Kalven of the Invisible Institute/View From the Ground on The Ministry of Truth radio broadcast:

The Ministry of Truth: Interview with Jamie Kalven from View From The Ground (part 1 of 2) Radio, web
April 19, 2007

The Ministry of Truth: Interview with Jamie Kalven from View From The Ground (part 2 of 2) Radio, April 26, 2007

From my good friend Fran:

Dear Colleagues, pharmacy

Your Illinois libraries are concerned re this filtering legislation. You are probably aware that
internet filters are notorious for not being “smart”. They typically block health and other vital
information, ed We as librarians believe that filtering is a decision that should be made by a local
school, library, or community, not mandated by the state.

Please join us in unity on May 14th. Let your legislators and all who support free and open
access to the internet and local control know that you oppose this bill.

Thank you all for your support!

Monday, 14 May 2007 Is a Day of Unity for the Illinois Library Community to Demonstrate Our Opposition to House Bill 1727

Public Policy Committee’s Action Plan Regarding Proposed Mandatory Internet Filter Legislation

In response to the Illinois House of Representatives passing House Bill 1727, the Illinois Library Association’s Public Policy Committee met yesterday to determine the library community’s response. ILA requests that libraries communicate and/or demonstrate the negative effects of this legislation. Because the association is a strong promoter of local control, we are recommending that local libraries determine the most appropriate action for their community and act accordingly. The committee did, however, declare:

Monday, 14 May 2007 is a day of unity for the Illinois library community to demonstrate our opposition to House Bill 1727, the mandatory public and school library Internet filter legislation.

(more…)

the motion of thought

Thursday, April 19th, 2007

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!
Kate circulated links including your paper “Community Networks and the Evolution of Civic Intelligence.”

I think there is a conceptual gap, ampoule with regard to AFCN, though the bulk of what is described is true from an organizational-historical perspective.

My view is that we must consider these matters (community networks and the evolution of civic intelligence) from network and field perspectives which includes some organizational/institutional perspective, but transcends the limitations of the organizational perspective.

There is a nuance that must be drawn out:  the distinction between a “community network” and the “process of community networking”.  Coming to terms with this is essential for an appreciation of the would-be umbrella organization and it’s role.  It’s too early on a Saturday for me to draw this out, but I have written about this on several occasions.  Not to mention:  the double conceptual primitive in the joining of “community” and “network/ing” must be dealt with.

Another aspect that needs to be explored is the relation among organizations and sites of interaction in the broader field of Community ICT.  Community Networks and Community Networking (as process/perspective) is not within a vacuum.  Community Networks have been the unfunded, volunteer driven cousins of the movement (need to have some perspective on whether there is a movement, and a movement of what?) – and have had an eclectic base,  frequently representing hybrid roles from the beginning, and often promoted the very hybrid perspective demanded by our circumstances but so often rejected by funding and business minded “pragmatic” leaders in other marginally more funded sectors.  Look to community media.  Look to community technology (CTCs).  Look to NTAPs.  Situate the question of community network/ing and civic intelligence in relation to that broader field and the ongoing transformation of our society/the public sphere.

I consider this but the beginning of the dialogue. I also invite explicit exploration of Garth Graham’s writings on community networking as radical practice.  It is fundamentally the challenge of viewing our practice as a network of practices/discourses, rather than as historic manifestation of particular institutional forms in a  rapidly changing societal and technological context. There is much more to be said.


After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!
Kate circulated links including your paper “Community Networks and the Evolution of Civic Intelligence.”

I think there is a conceptual gap, ampoule with regard to AFCN, though the bulk of what is described is true from an organizational-historical perspective.

My view is that we must consider these matters (community networks and the evolution of civic intelligence) from network and field perspectives which includes some organizational/institutional perspective, but transcends the limitations of the organizational perspective.

There is a nuance that must be drawn out:  the distinction between a “community network” and the “process of community networking”.  Coming to terms with this is essential for an appreciation of the would-be umbrella organization and it’s role.  It’s too early on a Saturday for me to draw this out, but I have written about this on several occasions.  Not to mention:  the double conceptual primitive in the joining of “community” and “network/ing” must be dealt with.

Another aspect that needs to be explored is the relation among organizations and sites of interaction in the broader field of Community ICT.  Community Networks and Community Networking (as process/perspective) is not within a vacuum.  Community Networks have been the unfunded, volunteer driven cousins of the movement (need to have some perspective on whether there is a movement, and a movement of what?) – and have had an eclectic base,  frequently representing hybrid roles from the beginning, and often promoted the very hybrid perspective demanded by our circumstances but so often rejected by funding and business minded “pragmatic” leaders in other marginally more funded sectors.  Look to community media.  Look to community technology (CTCs).  Look to NTAPs.  Situate the question of community network/ing and civic intelligence in relation to that broader field and the ongoing transformation of our society/the public sphere.

I consider this but the beginning of the dialogue. I also invite explicit exploration of Garth Graham’s writings on community networking as radical practice.  It is fundamentally the challenge of viewing our practice as a network of practices/discourses, rather than as historic manifestation of particular institutional forms in a  rapidly changing societal and technological context. There is much more to be said.



I call upon all who view themselves as technology and social justice advocates to seize the moment afforded by the recent attention to Digital Inclusion: let’s raise both the public discourse and the practices of our field to a new level.

We’ve been doing heavy lifting trying to meaningfully connect our communities for a long time without sufficient resources or recognition. We know better than anyone else that the Divide persists and we’re glad it’s being noticed (again). We hear Digital Inclusion trumpeted as the virtue of every network proposal, viagra 100mg but we can’t allow ourselves to be used in the selling of these networks, ed and we can’t let our communities be sold short. We want the connectivity, website yes, but unless we as a people assert what we require of our networks we’ll be looking back upon another missed opportunity.

What we really want is a fundamental change in communications and technology policy at every level of social organization. We the people are a lot more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for… and than we are credited with by others who hold themselves above the people.

It’s time for us to state clearly who we are, what our values are and what we know is needed at this moment in history. Let your actions speak louder than your words, certainly, but get your story out there. This holds for all who seek social justice and have dedicated themselves to working locally. Your direct work with your community is important, but so is the shaping of our collective life through shared words, images and ideas. We must make time for both.

I warmly thank Sascha Meinrath for helping to further this conversation.

We’re all ready to move Beyond Digital Inclusion.

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!
Kate circulated links including your paper “Community Networks and the Evolution of Civic Intelligence.”

I think there is a conceptual gap, ampoule with regard to AFCN, though the bulk of what is described is true from an organizational-historical perspective.

My view is that we must consider these matters (community networks and the evolution of civic intelligence) from network and field perspectives which includes some organizational/institutional perspective, but transcends the limitations of the organizational perspective.

There is a nuance that must be drawn out:  the distinction between a “community network” and the “process of community networking”.  Coming to terms with this is essential for an appreciation of the would-be umbrella organization and it’s role.  It’s too early on a Saturday for me to draw this out, but I have written about this on several occasions.  Not to mention:  the double conceptual primitive in the joining of “community” and “network/ing” must be dealt with.

Another aspect that needs to be explored is the relation among organizations and sites of interaction in the broader field of Community ICT.  Community Networks and Community Networking (as process/perspective) is not within a vacuum.  Community Networks have been the unfunded, volunteer driven cousins of the movement (need to have some perspective on whether there is a movement, and a movement of what?) – and have had an eclectic base,  frequently representing hybrid roles from the beginning, and often promoted the very hybrid perspective demanded by our circumstances but so often rejected by funding and business minded “pragmatic” leaders in other marginally more funded sectors.  Look to community media.  Look to community technology (CTCs).  Look to NTAPs.  Situate the question of community network/ing and civic intelligence in relation to that broader field and the ongoing transformation of our society/the public sphere.

I consider this but the beginning of the dialogue. I also invite explicit exploration of Garth Graham’s writings on community networking as radical practice.  It is fundamentally the challenge of viewing our practice as a network of practices/discourses, rather than as historic manifestation of particular institutional forms in a  rapidly changing societal and technological context. There is much more to be said.



I call upon all who view themselves as technology and social justice advocates to seize the moment afforded by the recent attention to Digital Inclusion: let’s raise both the public discourse and the practices of our field to a new level.

We’ve been doing heavy lifting trying to meaningfully connect our communities for a long time without sufficient resources or recognition. We know better than anyone else that the Divide persists and we’re glad it’s being noticed (again). We hear Digital Inclusion trumpeted as the virtue of every network proposal, viagra 100mg but we can’t allow ourselves to be used in the selling of these networks, ed and we can’t let our communities be sold short. We want the connectivity, website yes, but unless we as a people assert what we require of our networks we’ll be looking back upon another missed opportunity.

What we really want is a fundamental change in communications and technology policy at every level of social organization. We the people are a lot more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for… and than we are credited with by others who hold themselves above the people.

It’s time for us to state clearly who we are, what our values are and what we know is needed at this moment in history. Let your actions speak louder than your words, certainly, but get your story out there. This holds for all who seek social justice and have dedicated themselves to working locally. Your direct work with your community is important, but so is the shaping of our collective life through shared words, images and ideas. We must make time for both.

I warmly thank Sascha Meinrath for helping to further this conversation.

We’re all ready to move Beyond Digital Inclusion.
The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!
Kate circulated links including your paper “Community Networks and the Evolution of Civic Intelligence.”

I think there is a conceptual gap, ampoule with regard to AFCN, though the bulk of what is described is true from an organizational-historical perspective.

My view is that we must consider these matters (community networks and the evolution of civic intelligence) from network and field perspectives which includes some organizational/institutional perspective, but transcends the limitations of the organizational perspective.

There is a nuance that must be drawn out:  the distinction between a “community network” and the “process of community networking”.  Coming to terms with this is essential for an appreciation of the would-be umbrella organization and it’s role.  It’s too early on a Saturday for me to draw this out, but I have written about this on several occasions.  Not to mention:  the double conceptual primitive in the joining of “community” and “network/ing” must be dealt with.

Another aspect that needs to be explored is the relation among organizations and sites of interaction in the broader field of Community ICT.  Community Networks and Community Networking (as process/perspective) is not within a vacuum.  Community Networks have been the unfunded, volunteer driven cousins of the movement (need to have some perspective on whether there is a movement, and a movement of what?) – and have had an eclectic base,  frequently representing hybrid roles from the beginning, and often promoted the very hybrid perspective demanded by our circumstances but so often rejected by funding and business minded “pragmatic” leaders in other marginally more funded sectors.  Look to community media.  Look to community technology (CTCs).  Look to NTAPs.  Situate the question of community network/ing and civic intelligence in relation to that broader field and the ongoing transformation of our society/the public sphere.

I consider this but the beginning of the dialogue. I also invite explicit exploration of Garth Graham’s writings on community networking as radical practice.  It is fundamentally the challenge of viewing our practice as a network of practices/discourses, rather than as historic manifestation of particular institutional forms in a  rapidly changing societal and technological context. There is much more to be said.



I call upon all who view themselves as technology and social justice advocates to seize the moment afforded by the recent attention to Digital Inclusion: let’s raise both the public discourse and the practices of our field to a new level.

We’ve been doing heavy lifting trying to meaningfully connect our communities for a long time without sufficient resources or recognition. We know better than anyone else that the Divide persists and we’re glad it’s being noticed (again). We hear Digital Inclusion trumpeted as the virtue of every network proposal, viagra 100mg but we can’t allow ourselves to be used in the selling of these networks, ed and we can’t let our communities be sold short. We want the connectivity, website yes, but unless we as a people assert what we require of our networks we’ll be looking back upon another missed opportunity.

What we really want is a fundamental change in communications and technology policy at every level of social organization. We the people are a lot more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for… and than we are credited with by others who hold themselves above the people.

It’s time for us to state clearly who we are, what our values are and what we know is needed at this moment in history. Let your actions speak louder than your words, certainly, but get your story out there. This holds for all who seek social justice and have dedicated themselves to working locally. Your direct work with your community is important, but so is the shaping of our collective life through shared words, images and ideas. We must make time for both.

I warmly thank Sascha Meinrath for helping to further this conversation.

We’re all ready to move Beyond Digital Inclusion.
The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

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, pharm
when television was introduced, steroids
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?

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!
Kate circulated links including your paper “Community Networks and the Evolution of Civic Intelligence.”

I think there is a conceptual gap, ampoule with regard to AFCN, though the bulk of what is described is true from an organizational-historical perspective.

My view is that we must consider these matters (community networks and the evolution of civic intelligence) from network and field perspectives which includes some organizational/institutional perspective, but transcends the limitations of the organizational perspective.

There is a nuance that must be drawn out:  the distinction between a “community network” and the “process of community networking”.  Coming to terms with this is essential for an appreciation of the would-be umbrella organization and it’s role.  It’s too early on a Saturday for me to draw this out, but I have written about this on several occasions.  Not to mention:  the double conceptual primitive in the joining of “community” and “network/ing” must be dealt with.

Another aspect that needs to be explored is the relation among organizations and sites of interaction in the broader field of Community ICT.  Community Networks and Community Networking (as process/perspective) is not within a vacuum.  Community Networks have been the unfunded, volunteer driven cousins of the movement (need to have some perspective on whether there is a movement, and a movement of what?) – and have had an eclectic base,  frequently representing hybrid roles from the beginning, and often promoted the very hybrid perspective demanded by our circumstances but so often rejected by funding and business minded “pragmatic” leaders in other marginally more funded sectors.  Look to community media.  Look to community technology (CTCs).  Look to NTAPs.  Situate the question of community network/ing and civic intelligence in relation to that broader field and the ongoing transformation of our society/the public sphere.

I consider this but the beginning of the dialogue. I also invite explicit exploration of Garth Graham’s writings on community networking as radical practice.  It is fundamentally the challenge of viewing our practice as a network of practices/discourses, rather than as historic manifestation of particular institutional forms in a  rapidly changing societal and technological context. There is much more to be said.



I call upon all who view themselves as technology and social justice advocates to seize the moment afforded by the recent attention to Digital Inclusion: let’s raise both the public discourse and the practices of our field to a new level.

We’ve been doing heavy lifting trying to meaningfully connect our communities for a long time without sufficient resources or recognition. We know better than anyone else that the Divide persists and we’re glad it’s being noticed (again). We hear Digital Inclusion trumpeted as the virtue of every network proposal, viagra 100mg but we can’t allow ourselves to be used in the selling of these networks, ed and we can’t let our communities be sold short. We want the connectivity, website yes, but unless we as a people assert what we require of our networks we’ll be looking back upon another missed opportunity.

What we really want is a fundamental change in communications and technology policy at every level of social organization. We the people are a lot more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for… and than we are credited with by others who hold themselves above the people.

It’s time for us to state clearly who we are, what our values are and what we know is needed at this moment in history. Let your actions speak louder than your words, certainly, but get your story out there. This holds for all who seek social justice and have dedicated themselves to working locally. Your direct work with your community is important, but so is the shaping of our collective life through shared words, images and ideas. We must make time for both.

I warmly thank Sascha Meinrath for helping to further this conversation.

We’re all ready to move Beyond Digital Inclusion.
The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

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, pharm
when television was introduced, steroids
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?
Tutor Mentor Connection: “If you want peace, price work for justice”

Dan Bassill writes:

My final meeting was with a senior at Northwestern University who is interviewing for a fellowship. His essay started with the statement, “If you want peace, work for justice.” (Pope Paul VI).

He wrote that at first he did not understand the meaning of this. But after doing a 2006 internship he realized that “if you really want to improve the world you need to give all people the same opportunities.” He concluded, “Denying someone justice did not mean prohibiting access to the courts, it meant not allowing them to reach their full potential given to them by God.”

The Pope’s words certainly resonate for me, but the young man’s further interpretation warranted a citation.

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!
Kate circulated links including your paper “Community Networks and the Evolution of Civic Intelligence.”

I think there is a conceptual gap, ampoule with regard to AFCN, though the bulk of what is described is true from an organizational-historical perspective.

My view is that we must consider these matters (community networks and the evolution of civic intelligence) from network and field perspectives which includes some organizational/institutional perspective, but transcends the limitations of the organizational perspective.

There is a nuance that must be drawn out:  the distinction between a “community network” and the “process of community networking”.  Coming to terms with this is essential for an appreciation of the would-be umbrella organization and it’s role.  It’s too early on a Saturday for me to draw this out, but I have written about this on several occasions.  Not to mention:  the double conceptual primitive in the joining of “community” and “network/ing” must be dealt with.

Another aspect that needs to be explored is the relation among organizations and sites of interaction in the broader field of Community ICT.  Community Networks and Community Networking (as process/perspective) is not within a vacuum.  Community Networks have been the unfunded, volunteer driven cousins of the movement (need to have some perspective on whether there is a movement, and a movement of what?) – and have had an eclectic base,  frequently representing hybrid roles from the beginning, and often promoted the very hybrid perspective demanded by our circumstances but so often rejected by funding and business minded “pragmatic” leaders in other marginally more funded sectors.  Look to community media.  Look to community technology (CTCs).  Look to NTAPs.  Situate the question of community network/ing and civic intelligence in relation to that broader field and the ongoing transformation of our society/the public sphere.

I consider this but the beginning of the dialogue. I also invite explicit exploration of Garth Graham’s writings on community networking as radical practice.  It is fundamentally the challenge of viewing our practice as a network of practices/discourses, rather than as historic manifestation of particular institutional forms in a  rapidly changing societal and technological context. There is much more to be said.



I call upon all who view themselves as technology and social justice advocates to seize the moment afforded by the recent attention to Digital Inclusion: let’s raise both the public discourse and the practices of our field to a new level.

We’ve been doing heavy lifting trying to meaningfully connect our communities for a long time without sufficient resources or recognition. We know better than anyone else that the Divide persists and we’re glad it’s being noticed (again). We hear Digital Inclusion trumpeted as the virtue of every network proposal, viagra 100mg but we can’t allow ourselves to be used in the selling of these networks, ed and we can’t let our communities be sold short. We want the connectivity, website yes, but unless we as a people assert what we require of our networks we’ll be looking back upon another missed opportunity.

What we really want is a fundamental change in communications and technology policy at every level of social organization. We the people are a lot more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for… and than we are credited with by others who hold themselves above the people.

It’s time for us to state clearly who we are, what our values are and what we know is needed at this moment in history. Let your actions speak louder than your words, certainly, but get your story out there. This holds for all who seek social justice and have dedicated themselves to working locally. Your direct work with your community is important, but so is the shaping of our collective life through shared words, images and ideas. We must make time for both.

I warmly thank Sascha Meinrath for helping to further this conversation.

We’re all ready to move Beyond Digital Inclusion.
The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

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, pharm
when television was introduced, steroids
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?
Tutor Mentor Connection: “If you want peace, price work for justice”

Dan Bassill writes:

My final meeting was with a senior at Northwestern University who is interviewing for a fellowship. His essay started with the statement, “If you want peace, work for justice.” (Pope Paul VI).

He wrote that at first he did not understand the meaning of this. But after doing a 2006 internship he realized that “if you really want to improve the world you need to give all people the same opportunities.” He concluded, “Denying someone justice did not mean prohibiting access to the courts, it meant not allowing them to reach their full potential given to them by God.”

The Pope’s words certainly resonate for me, but the young man’s further interpretation warranted a citation.
From:  Community Media Workshop: Newstips – Reform Group Challenges Rush Telecom Vote

sale Arial, information pills Sans-Serif” size=”-1″>The media reform group Free Press has called on Rep. Bobby Rush to abstain from voting on any bills that could benefit AT&T, cardiologist 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.

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!
Kate circulated links including your paper “Community Networks and the Evolution of Civic Intelligence.”

I think there is a conceptual gap, ampoule with regard to AFCN, though the bulk of what is described is true from an organizational-historical perspective.

My view is that we must consider these matters (community networks and the evolution of civic intelligence) from network and field perspectives which includes some organizational/institutional perspective, but transcends the limitations of the organizational perspective.

There is a nuance that must be drawn out:  the distinction between a “community network” and the “process of community networking”.  Coming to terms with this is essential for an appreciation of the would-be umbrella organization and it’s role.  It’s too early on a Saturday for me to draw this out, but I have written about this on several occasions.  Not to mention:  the double conceptual primitive in the joining of “community” and “network/ing” must be dealt with.

Another aspect that needs to be explored is the relation among organizations and sites of interaction in the broader field of Community ICT.  Community Networks and Community Networking (as process/perspective) is not within a vacuum.  Community Networks have been the unfunded, volunteer driven cousins of the movement (need to have some perspective on whether there is a movement, and a movement of what?) – and have had an eclectic base,  frequently representing hybrid roles from the beginning, and often promoted the very hybrid perspective demanded by our circumstances but so often rejected by funding and business minded “pragmatic” leaders in other marginally more funded sectors.  Look to community media.  Look to community technology (CTCs).  Look to NTAPs.  Situate the question of community network/ing and civic intelligence in relation to that broader field and the ongoing transformation of our society/the public sphere.

I consider this but the beginning of the dialogue. I also invite explicit exploration of Garth Graham’s writings on community networking as radical practice.  It is fundamentally the challenge of viewing our practice as a network of practices/discourses, rather than as historic manifestation of particular institutional forms in a  rapidly changing societal and technological context. There is much more to be said.



I call upon all who view themselves as technology and social justice advocates to seize the moment afforded by the recent attention to Digital Inclusion: let’s raise both the public discourse and the practices of our field to a new level.

We’ve been doing heavy lifting trying to meaningfully connect our communities for a long time without sufficient resources or recognition. We know better than anyone else that the Divide persists and we’re glad it’s being noticed (again). We hear Digital Inclusion trumpeted as the virtue of every network proposal, viagra 100mg but we can’t allow ourselves to be used in the selling of these networks, ed and we can’t let our communities be sold short. We want the connectivity, website yes, but unless we as a people assert what we require of our networks we’ll be looking back upon another missed opportunity.

What we really want is a fundamental change in communications and technology policy at every level of social organization. We the people are a lot more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for… and than we are credited with by others who hold themselves above the people.

It’s time for us to state clearly who we are, what our values are and what we know is needed at this moment in history. Let your actions speak louder than your words, certainly, but get your story out there. This holds for all who seek social justice and have dedicated themselves to working locally. Your direct work with your community is important, but so is the shaping of our collective life through shared words, images and ideas. We must make time for both.

I warmly thank Sascha Meinrath for helping to further this conversation.

We’re all ready to move Beyond Digital Inclusion.
The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

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, pharm
when television was introduced, steroids
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?
Tutor Mentor Connection: “If you want peace, price work for justice”

Dan Bassill writes:

My final meeting was with a senior at Northwestern University who is interviewing for a fellowship. His essay started with the statement, “If you want peace, work for justice.” (Pope Paul VI).

He wrote that at first he did not understand the meaning of this. But after doing a 2006 internship he realized that “if you really want to improve the world you need to give all people the same opportunities.” He concluded, “Denying someone justice did not mean prohibiting access to the courts, it meant not allowing them to reach their full potential given to them by God.”

The Pope’s words certainly resonate for me, but the young man’s further interpretation warranted a citation.
From:  Community Media Workshop: Newstips – Reform Group Challenges Rush Telecom Vote

sale Arial, information pills Sans-Serif” size=”-1″>The media reform group Free Press has called on Rep. Bobby Rush to abstain from voting on any bills that could benefit AT&T, cardiologist 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.

Community Media Workshop: Newstips – Community Wi-Fi Pushed

It’s my birthday, ed and the cause is going strong!

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

diabetes and pregnancy Arial, viagra here Sans-Serif” size=”-1″> A coalition of community groups is meeting with companies bidding on contracts for the city’s planned wireless network, encouraging them to include in their proposals a community benefits agreement providing neighborhood networks.

The Coalition for Community Wireless Networks met recently with representatives of Earthlink and is scheduled to meet with AT&T this week.

“We want to plant a seed in bidders’ minds” that community benefits agreements would make their proposals more attractive, said Ben Helphand of the Center for Neighborhood Technology.

CCWN has joined a call by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance for the city to broaden internet access provisions in its request for proposals – which now requires equipment, training, and discounted service for low-income individuals – to address community-wide access issues. CCWN includes a number of community development corporations, while CDAA represents community technology centers.

The groups envision the city’s wireless system as a “network of community networks,” with community institutions and businesses served by each neighborhood’s network.

“It’s an opportunity to bring economic development into our community” by helping merchants reach a local audience, encouraging internet-based businesses, and linking residents to local jobs, said Ernest Sanders of the Greater Auburn-Gresham Development Corp. A community network would also better serve local schools, civic groups, and churches, he said.

A community benefits agreement would bring resources and support to efforts like Technology Bridges in Englewood. There FaithTech Network is conducting a digital assets inventory and developing 25 church-based community technology centers – with similar efforts underway in Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and North Lawndale, said Pierre Clark, a CDAA founder.

The groups point to community benefits in Minneapolis’s wireless program, including a digital inclusion fund backed by a percentage of service providers’ revenue, and a free “walled garden” of content featuring neighborhood groups, city websites and public safety information, available to anyone who can access the signal.

Bids on the city’s request for proposals are due at the beginning of next year.

CDAA has held six neighborhood meetings on the proposal for a community benefits agreement and plans more, Clark said; the next one takes place this Friday, December 15, at 5 p.m. at the office of Networking for Democracy, 3411 W. Diversey.

After Laure Dillon’s account of Hawaiian gatherings at the recent O-Net member initiated Open Space I am in a mode that is highly receptive of the idea of lineage… as a moment of respectful tying in to a greater web. There are lineages of blood… and the river of the past that pours into us in this way branches at each generation back.

But the rivers of transmission of thought and culture keep pouring into us our whole lives from so many more sources when we are open. Let these rivers pass through you.

I’m excited that Free Geek Chicago was recently launched as a project of NPOTechs and the Logan Square CTC (Community Technology Center).

Check out the website: http://www.freegeekchicago.org/

Description from their website:

FREE GEEK Chicago is a not-for-profit community organization that recycles used technology to provide computers, disease education, about it internet access and job skills training to the underserved communities of Chicago in exchange for community service.

FREE GEEK Chicago was founded in August 2005 as a collaboration of NPOTechs and Logan Square CTC to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to economically disadvantaged individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations.

FREE GEEK Chicago does most of this work with volunteers. The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.

We are proud of being a democratically-run organization, and use consensus in our meetings. Our policy decisions are made by a group of volunteers and staff called the council, and those policies are executed by our staff collective.

Anyone can get involved! Donate used equipment… volunteer your time… support a grassroots community organization!

This was on cable Christmas night, website and not having seen it beginning to end before I thought it was fitting for the occasion.

We’re not quite through with race in America… but as we creep up towards 40 years since the film was released, valeologist what is different now?

Do we live up to the ideals we espouse when we face them in our living room?

I think that we all share a common figure in our mind, viagra 40mg the image of a Teacher having a proud moment when one of their students goes on to do something worthy of respect in the world.

What makes for a nice twist on this theme is when a great teacher goes on to achieve some recognition in the wider world.

Today I picked up a signed copy of the latest book by Frank McCourt, my HS English Teacher.

I’m not nec. one for sticking to reading clubs, but would be happy to dialogue with any of you that might read his new book, Teacher Man.

What makes for a great writer? What makes for a great story-teller?

I can remember him for his skills in the latter, (and the public has certainly recognized him for his talent in the former) in the many times we convinced him to launch into story. We probably didn’t realize that story-telling in English class was in fact a learning moment…

i’ve a taste for the psychological in film, approved especially when there is willingness to explore the surreal and the absurd

how would you describe contemporary films of this sort?

My friend Gerry Gleason recently commented:

Now that the peer-produced encyclopedia, find Wikipedia, viagra surpasses all but the premier commercial encyclopedia in completeness and quality, phimosis 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.
Just wanted to report in from the 2005 Summit: The Strategic Use Of Information and Communication Technologies for Community being held in Vancouver.

The participants are primarily Canadian, pills but there is a significant contingent from Latin America, there thanks to the Telecentres of the Americas Project (TAP).

AFCN Board, Advisors and Friends formed a sizable USA delegation.

As with most conferences, a great deal of the dynamic interaction takes place in the informal settings, between sessions, over meals, and at ad hoc meetings you put together. It certainly reinforces the rational for Open Space and LAP practices.

I think it gave an extra charge to our decision today to make conscious commitment to Open Space for the forthcoming Austin conference (or convergence, as I say).

One lesson learned, or reinforced has to do with the diversity of the “international” context. Frequently there is a presentation of a view of there being a US perspective or experience and an International one. However, the diversity of situations around the world belie that concept.

If there are groups in the US that grasp a problem from a global vantage, oftentimes their efforts to instigate an international effort or form an international organization is viewed with hesitation or meets with a bit of negativity.

As President of the AFCN (Association For Community Networking) I struggle to emphasize that though we are based in the USA, and the bulk of our members are in the States, we are open and welcoming to others.

I’m here in Vancouver on behalf of AFCN to demonstrate our commitment to our friends in Canada and throughout the hemisphere.

The culture and understanding of Civic Society in Canada appears stronger than in the USA. I’m concerned with identifying strategies to reclaim and advance the civic culture and discourse. Needless to say, the reception here has been tremendous, and it did seem to me that they were well pleased that we took the trouble to attend, and that it became evident that we are still confronting a great many of the same issues.

This is all aside from the fact that Vancouver is a beautiful setting, in the limited moments I’ve had outside of the conference space!
Kate circulated links including your paper “Community Networks and the Evolution of Civic Intelligence.”

I think there is a conceptual gap, ampoule with regard to AFCN, though the bulk of what is described is true from an organizational-historical perspective.

My view is that we must consider these matters (community networks and the evolution of civic intelligence) from network and field perspectives which includes some organizational/institutional perspective, but transcends the limitations of the organizational perspective.

There is a nuance that must be drawn out:  the distinction between a “community network” and the “process of community networking”.  Coming to terms with this is essential for an appreciation of the would-be umbrella organization and it’s role.  It’s too early on a Saturday for me to draw this out, but I have written about this on several occasions.  Not to mention:  the double conceptual primitive in the joining of “community” and “network/ing” must be dealt with.

Another aspect that needs to be explored is the relation among organizations and sites of interaction in the broader field of Community ICT.  Community Networks and Community Networking (as process/perspective) is not within a vacuum.  Community Networks have been the unfunded, volunteer driven cousins of the movement (need to have some perspective on whether there is a movement, and a movement of what?) – and have had an eclectic base,  frequently representing hybrid roles from the beginning, and often promoted the very hybrid perspective demanded by our circumstances but so often rejected by funding and business minded “pragmatic” leaders in other marginally more funded sectors.  Look to community media.  Look to community technology (CTCs).  Look to NTAPs.  Situate the question of community network/ing and civic intelligence in relation to that broader field and the ongoing transformation of our society/the public sphere.

I consider this but the beginning of the dialogue. I also invite explicit exploration of Garth Graham’s writings on community networking as radical practice.  It is fundamentally the challenge of viewing our practice as a network of practices/discourses, rather than as historic manifestation of particular institutional forms in a  rapidly changing societal and technological context. There is much more to be said.



I call upon all who view themselves as technology and social justice advocates to seize the moment afforded by the recent attention to Digital Inclusion: let’s raise both the public discourse and the practices of our field to a new level.

We’ve been doing heavy lifting trying to meaningfully connect our communities for a long time without sufficient resources or recognition. We know better than anyone else that the Divide persists and we’re glad it’s being noticed (again). We hear Digital Inclusion trumpeted as the virtue of every network proposal, viagra 100mg but we can’t allow ourselves to be used in the selling of these networks, ed and we can’t let our communities be sold short. We want the connectivity, website yes, but unless we as a people assert what we require of our networks we’ll be looking back upon another missed opportunity.

What we really want is a fundamental change in communications and technology policy at every level of social organization. We the people are a lot more sophisticated than we give ourselves credit for… and than we are credited with by others who hold themselves above the people.

It’s time for us to state clearly who we are, what our values are and what we know is needed at this moment in history. Let your actions speak louder than your words, certainly, but get your story out there. This holds for all who seek social justice and have dedicated themselves to working locally. Your direct work with your community is important, but so is the shaping of our collective life through shared words, images and ideas. We must make time for both.

I warmly thank Sascha Meinrath for helping to further this conversation.

We’re all ready to move Beyond Digital Inclusion.
The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

The so called “video competition” bill, medicine HB 1500 is opposed by every community and advocacy group worth it’s salt. A lobby day is planned for Weds. April 18 under the Keep Us Connected coalition. From their site:

Join the Keep Us Connected coalition. Support pro-community video franchise laws that:

  • Require build-out to all neighborhoods in a community
  • Protect Public, information pills Educational and Government (PEG) Access by ensuring carriage of existing and future PEG stations with adequate funding to operate
  • Maintain local governments’ control over its rights of way, order including the right to create communications networks
  • Protect consumers with meaningful competition and strong customer service standards
  • Maintain a free and open Internet

The Keep Us Connected coalition consists of nonprofits, municipalities, PEG Access stations, educational and government institutions, and Illinois residents.

Some civic voices including yours truly are given space on Community Media Workshop: Newstips – “Cable Deregulation Challenged”.

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

[UPDATE - The April 18 hearing on HB 1500 has been postponed, according to a report from the Keep Us Connected Coalition. The coalition is proceeding with its citizens lobby day on April 18 in Springfield. ]

Growing attention on a proposed statewide cable franchise bill could slow a legislative blitz by supporters of telecommunications giant AT&T.

State Representative James Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) was expecting the House Telecommunications Committee he chairs to vote Wednesday to approve HB 1500, the franchise bill he has sponsored, but the vote could be delayed. The bill would strip local municipalities of cable franchising power and create state franchises authorized by the Illinois Commerce Commission, going far toward deregulating the industry in Illinois.

AT&T has poured money into a full-court press by lobbyists in support of the measure, along with an extensive TV ad campaign suggesting that HB 1500 promises competition and lower cable rates.

But last week Ald. Edward Burke introduced a City Council resolution calling on the legislature to reject the bill. He plans to hold hearings on the issue with Attorney General Lisa Madigan and others, said spokesperson Donal Quinlan. A press conference called by Burke Tuesday morning (10 a.m. at City Hall, room 302) will raise the profile of opposition to the measure by the city and by municipalities across the state.

Public Access Channels Threatened

Wednesday morning, as the committee meets, community activists backing Chicago’s CAN-TV and public access channels across the state will arrive in Springfield for a citizen lobby day by the Keep Us Connected Coalition. (Community Media Workshop is a coalition member; CMW president Thom Clark hosts a show on CAN-TV.) The coalition says HB 1500 would undercut existing guarantees on funding, channel accessiblity and quality for public access cable, would provide for no new public channels in new service areas, and would establish stringent “no-repeat” requirements – not applying to commercial channels – allowing providers to eliminate public access channels.

“Instead of talking about strengthening public access, as we should be, we’re fighting to get back to first base,” said Barbara Popovic of CAN-TV.

Representatives of municipalities are challenging the basic concept of HB 1500 – that state franchises are needed to promote cable competition. They point out that by overriding local control, the bill eliminates basic customer service protections now enforced by municipalities, as well as local franchise requirements that entire communities be served.

Without anti-redlining provisions – which are probably only practical on a local basis – the measure won’t promote competition and lower rates across the board, but will create a dynamic where rates go down in affluent areas but are “subsidized by higher prices paid by residents in lower-income, non-competitive areas,” Burke argues in his resolution.

Eminent Domain for AT&T

Municipalities are outraged that for the first time they’ll have no oversight over contruction in their public right-of-ways, said Terry Miller, an attorney with the City of Naperville. Local officials worry about refrigerator-sized utility boxes which AT&T would have blanket authorization to install under the bill’s franchise, he said.

Under the bill the ICC can authorize franchises but has no enforcement power. Supporters of HB 1500 have promised “self-enforcement.”

Most shocking for many is the bill’s grant of eminent domain powers to AT&T and other state franchise holders, with no requirement for just compensation or avenue for appeal. HB 1500 “gives away the store regarding the ability of a private company to encroach on residential property in ways we’ve never seen before,” Quinlan said. “It’s extremely problematic.”

The eminent domain provision is not expected to survive current negotiations over amendments, but it’s indicative of the way Brosnahan’s bill contains “an a la carte sampling” of only the provisions in cable law that favor AT&T, Miller said.

“What’s clear about this bill is that it was written by telecommunications lobbyists,” according to technology analyst Sascha Meinrath, executive director of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, on his blog. “I can only imagine that the goal was to fast-track this bill and sneak it through before the public got organized enough to demand that it be withdrawn.”

“AT&T wants to make this happen now because they know that with more time, more questions will be raised,” said Brian Imus of Illinois PIRG, calling HB 1500 “a sweetheart deal for AT&T.”

He points out, “There’s nothing now blocking competition, nothing stopping AT&T from negotiating cable franchises with local municipalities.”

‘Local Franchising Works’

“Local franchising works real well,” points out Roger Huebner of the Illinois Municipal League. He’s meeting with Brosnahan Tuesday to propose amendments to the Municipal Code and existing statutes that currently cover cable franchising, in order to address AT&T’s complaints about aspects of the process that are cumbersome, he said. The approach embodied in HB 1500 – creating a new article in the Public Utilities Act to give the ICC authority to issue state cable franchises – is unnecessary, he maintains.

Verizon, AT&T’s chief competitor for internet provider television (IPTV), has snapped up hundreds of local franchises on the East Coast, and according to Huebner, AT&T itself is seeking local video franchises in Illinois communities including Bellwood and Wheaton.

The municipal amendments should get full consideration, said Miller. That would mean no committee vote on Wednesday.

Brosnahan’s office said he was waiting for proposed amendments from the Attorney General’s office. Another hearing on the bill has now been scheduled for one week after this Wednesday’s hearing.

Illinois PIRG was joined by national consumer groups including Consumers Union in opposing the bill in its original form. “The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a statewide scale,” according to a letter from Consumer Union’s Jeannine Kenney and others to state legislators. They say other states with similar deregulation schemes have seen prices increase, “leaving consumers with nothing but empty promises.”

Consumer groups also emphasize the importance on non-discriminatory “net neutrality” provisions ensuring free access to content to the Internet.

Michael Maranda of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance points out that AT&T is pushing legislation legalizing redlining and undermining local control and access even as it presents itself as a bidder on Chicago’s wireless network, which parallels the city’s cable franchises – and requires a digital inclusion plan. “It’s a horrible bill and a discredit to the state,” he said.

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, pharm
when television was introduced, steroids
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?
Tutor Mentor Connection: “If you want peace, price work for justice”

Dan Bassill writes:

My final meeting was with a senior at Northwestern University who is interviewing for a fellowship. His essay started with the statement, “If you want peace, work for justice.” (Pope Paul VI).

He wrote that at first he did not understand the meaning of this. But after doing a 2006 internship he realized that “if you really want to improve the world you need to give all people the same opportunities.” He concluded, “Denying someone justice did not mean prohibiting access to the courts, it meant not allowing them to reach their full potential given to them by God.”

The Pope’s words certainly resonate for me, but the young man’s further interpretation warranted a citation.
From:  Community Media Workshop: Newstips – Reform Group Challenges Rush Telecom Vote

sale Arial, information pills Sans-Serif” size=”-1″>The media reform group Free Press has called on Rep. Bobby Rush to abstain from voting on any bills that could benefit AT&T, cardiologist 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.

Community Media Workshop: Newstips – Community Wi-Fi Pushed

It’s my birthday, ed and the cause is going strong!

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

diabetes and pregnancy Arial, viagra here Sans-Serif” size=”-1″> A coalition of community groups is meeting with companies bidding on contracts for the city’s planned wireless network, encouraging them to include in their proposals a community benefits agreement providing neighborhood networks.

The Coalition for Community Wireless Networks met recently with representatives of Earthlink and is scheduled to meet with AT&T this week.

“We want to plant a seed in bidders’ minds” that community benefits agreements would make their proposals more attractive, said Ben Helphand of the Center for Neighborhood Technology.

CCWN has joined a call by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance for the city to broaden internet access provisions in its request for proposals – which now requires equipment, training, and discounted service for low-income individuals – to address community-wide access issues. CCWN includes a number of community development corporations, while CDAA represents community technology centers.

The groups envision the city’s wireless system as a “network of community networks,” with community institutions and businesses served by each neighborhood’s network.

“It’s an opportunity to bring economic development into our community” by helping merchants reach a local audience, encouraging internet-based businesses, and linking residents to local jobs, said Ernest Sanders of the Greater Auburn-Gresham Development Corp. A community network would also better serve local schools, civic groups, and churches, he said.

A community benefits agreement would bring resources and support to efforts like Technology Bridges in Englewood. There FaithTech Network is conducting a digital assets inventory and developing 25 church-based community technology centers – with similar efforts underway in Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and North Lawndale, said Pierre Clark, a CDAA founder.

The groups point to community benefits in Minneapolis’s wireless program, including a digital inclusion fund backed by a percentage of service providers’ revenue, and a free “walled garden” of content featuring neighborhood groups, city websites and public safety information, available to anyone who can access the signal.

Bids on the city’s request for proposals are due at the beginning of next year.

CDAA has held six neighborhood meetings on the proposal for a community benefits agreement and plans more, Clark said; the next one takes place this Friday, December 15, at 5 p.m. at the office of Networking for Democracy, 3411 W. Diversey.

Community Media Workshop: Newstips – Community Wi-Fi Pushed

It’s my birthday, ed and the cause is going strong!

Here’s the full text from Newstips:

diabetes and pregnancy Arial, viagra here Sans-Serif” size=”-1″> A coalition of community groups is meeting with companies bidding on contracts for the city’s planned wireless network, encouraging them to include in their proposals a community benefits agreement providing neighborhood networks.

The Coalition for Community Wireless Networks met recently with representatives of Earthlink and is scheduled to meet with AT&T this week.

“We want to plant a seed in bidders’ minds” that community benefits agreements would make their proposals more attractive, said Ben Helphand of the Center for Neighborhood Technology.

CCWN has joined a call by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance for the city to broaden internet access provisions in its request for proposals – which now requires equipment, training, and discounted service for low-income individuals – to address community-wide access issues. CCWN includes a number of community development corporations, while CDAA represents community technology centers.

The groups envision the city’s wireless system as a “network of community networks,” with community institutions and businesses served by each neighborhood’s network.

“It’s an opportunity to bring economic development into our community” by helping merchants reach a local audience, encouraging internet-based businesses, and linking residents to local jobs, said Ernest Sanders of the Greater Auburn-Gresham Development Corp. A community network would also better serve local schools, civic groups, and churches, he said.

A community benefits agreement would bring resources and support to efforts like Technology Bridges in Englewood. There FaithTech Network is conducting a digital assets inventory and developing 25 church-based community technology centers – with similar efforts underway in Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and North Lawndale, said Pierre Clark, a CDAA founder.

The groups point to community benefits in Minneapolis’s wireless program, including a digital inclusion fund backed by a percentage of service providers’ revenue, and a free “walled garden” of content featuring neighborhood groups, city websites and public safety information, available to anyone who can access the signal.

Bids on the city’s request for proposals are due at the beginning of next year.

CDAA has held six neighborhood meetings on the proposal for a community benefits agreement and plans more, Clark said; the next one takes place this Friday, December 15, at 5 p.m. at the office of Networking for Democracy, 3411 W. Diversey.

that which arrests the motion of thought is false

This is an ethical and an intellectual principle for me, cheap
  dare I say a semeiotic principle?

Hitched to Hooze WagN at Grass Commons?

Sunday, April 8th, 2007

http://vargodaggett.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/theyre-our-airwaves/

http://vargodaggett.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/theyre-our-airwaves/

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, look 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, grip but that is exactly what we need more of. And we do need NICK. Though it looks to be a long-range project, more about 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.